Skip to main content

Full text of "The Nonconformist conscience a persecuting force"

See other formats


Nonconformist Conscience 
a Persecuting Force. 



Sometime member of the Manchester School Board, author of 

"Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, M.A., and Wesleyan Methodist 

Educational Policy? " The Overstrain in Primary 

Schools," &c. 

" Many times men walk according to conscience when they 
are walking quite contrary to Scripture." - Archbishop Lkighton. 

"A man may be acting from such conscience as he has, 
and yet his policy may outrage every principle of justice."— 

Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell. 


Dbansgate and Ridghfield, Manchester ; 

io, 32, »4, a6, Lamb's Conduit St., London, W.C 


Introduction — Scope of Work 5 

The Anti-brewer Agitation over the QueBtion of the Manchester 
Mayoralty considered as an object-lesson in Nonconformist 

Intolerance 6 

Who is to Blame for Drunkenness? 14 

The True Responsibility of the Publican 18 

The Argument from a " Rising Ethical Standard " Examined 30 

The Puritanic Theory 34 

Its Failure in Practice 37 

The Agitation Tested by Christian Standards 41 

Rev. F. B. Meyer's "bandit" Speech 46 

Want of Christian Spirit 49 

Rev. C. F. Aked as a Champion of "Righteousness" f5 

What the Agitation Implies 62 

The Psychological Snare of Teetotalism 66 

The Logical Confusion of Teetotalism 68 

Mr. Lloyd-George and the United Kingdom Alliance Meeting 78 

Other Teetotalisms Abandoned 81 

Passive Resistors 86 

Two Persecuting Movements 94 

Persecuting Utterances of Certain Passive Resiaters 96 

Dr. Leach 99 

Dr. John Massie 101 

Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell 104 

Dr. John Clifford 108 

Passive Resistance a Geographical Matter 128 

Cry of " No Tests for Teachers " 124 

The Nemesis of History 13j 



Cowper-Templeism not likejy to endure as exclusive system 1 34 

"Secular Solution" not fair to all 136 

If Secular Education comes, whose the Blame ? 140 

The National Free Church Council 149 

Ib the Influence of the Free Church Council narrowing Wesleyan 

Methodism? 180 

The Government Education Bill (1908) 195 

The Government Licensing Bill (1908) 206 

Some Band of Hope Methods — Sweets and Bitters 212 

" Storming the Chancellor " — a Free Church Council Deputation.. 215 

Open letters to — 

The Right Reverend the Bishop of Manchester 219 

The Rev. Canon E. L. Hicks, M.A 225 

The Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, M.A., President Designate of the 

Wesleyan Methodist Conference 231 

The Rev. Dr. James Hope Moulton, of Didsbury College ... 235 

R. D. Darbishire, Esq., Honorary Freeman of the City of 

Manchester 239 

Mr. J. W. Graham, M.A., Principal of Dalton Hall 242 

Mr. Ex Vipont Brown, M.D. (Lond.) 246 

Trial in the " Court of Honour" 250 


9 N the following pages the anti-brewer agitation 
which raged in Manchester during the autumn 
of 1907 is taken as the starting-point of the 
discussion. That movement is treated as an 
object-lesson in intolerance, and the association of 
the leaders with other persecuting influences is pointed 
out. Passive resistance in particular is examined, 
and a persecuting element is shown to be present, both 
in its fundamental principle and in the tone and spirit 
of leading passive registers themselves. As the Free 
Church Council is one of the principal organs of the 
Nonconformist conscience, the composition and action 
of that body naturally come under review. Parties and 
persons are frequently dealt with, but rather as the 
embodiment and exemplification of principles than in 
their narrower aspects. 

This little work is of the nature of a protest and a 
challenge. It is put forth in the interests of fairness 
and moderation, by one who can at least claim the 
credit of being perfectly disinterested in the matter — 
for the writer has received no impulse or help of any 
kind in the production of these pages. Such as it is, 
the work is his own. Fundamentally, it is the appeal 
of an individual conscience addressed to the public 
conscience as a protest against the standards of the 
Nonconformist conscience The attempt has been made 
throughout to bring everything to the test of civic 
justice and civic utility. 




Outlinb op Facts. 

In August, 1907, the Manchester City Council gave some 
indication of its wish that Alderman Edward Holt should 
be appointed Lord Mayor in the following November. 
That gentleman had rendered good service in the 
Council for seventeen years. Five times he had been 
re-elected councillor without opposition, and the vote by 
which he was advanced to the Aldermanio bench was 
unanimous. But the proposal to confer on him the 
Mayoralty of the City was the signal for opposition of 
a somewhat strenuous character on the part of men who 
claimed to be the leaders of religion and philanthropy 
in Manchester and the neighbourhood. Their consciences, 
they said, were hurt by the proposal to confer the 
highest civic dignity on a brewer and owner of tied 

The November elections proved disastrous to the pro- 
testing party. Some of their friends were defeated at 
the polls, and supporters of Mr. Holt won certain seats; 
with the result that the objecting minority within the 
Council was reduced from about one-fourth of the total 
membership to less than one-eighth. Nothing daunted, 
however, by this repulse. Canon Hicks and Councillor 
Johnston declare that it is only the first battle in the 

campaign which has been lost. The struggle, we are 
told, has not ended, but only just begun. 

As the battle is to be fought over again in the near 
future, it seems worth while to study the question in 
a more dispassionate spirit than was possible in the heat 
and excitement of the recent struggle. Such study will 
not be entirely wasted, for few local movements in recent 
times have presented to the observer so many varied 
features of interest. 

A Preliminabt Glance. 

Let us, before advancing to the main argument, pass 
briefly in review some of the more important aspects 
of the question. 

1. — Viewed in relation to the liberty of the subject, 
the agitators aim at setting up a new trade disability. 
They propose to narrow the bounds of civic freedom, 
and rob a class of a part of the rights its members now 
enjoy. We are plainly told that the present proposal 
is only a beginning, and that, if successful in this their 
first effort, other classes will be subjected by them to 
the like inquisition and condemnation. Hence the 
matter interests all thoughtful citizens. If the new 
principle of persecution is to be accepted, let it only 
be accepted after full consideration, and with a just 
appreciation of its scope and import. It is a matter of 
vital interest to all classes that no one class should be 
subjected to persecution. As we are all members of one 
great society, the proposal to depress and degrade any 
portion of the social organism is essentially anti-social 
in its tendency. 

2. — Another novel feature is that the end of persecu- 
tion is not sought to be attained by the direct means 
of express legal enactment, but by the indirect method 
of social ostracism, based on appeals to class prejudice. 
And these methods, so alien to the genius of Christianity, 
are advocated by Christian leaders in the name of the 
religion whose principles they contravene. 

3. — The- movement involves a distinct usurpation of 
the City Council's proper constitutional powers. That 

a number of private citizens should attempt to veto the 
will of the majority of the town's elected representatives 
implies a certain impeachment of the representative 
system of government. Their action is in this sense 

4. — The kinship of the agitation with the passive 
resistance movement, obvious from the first, was noted 
by several correspondents of the Manchester Guardian. 
In both movements there exists the common element of 
an attack on the constituted order in the name of 
conscience. His Honour Judge Parry, in an address to 
the Labour Party at Urmston, drew attention to the 
anarchic tendency of both agitations, and condemned 
those who participated in either of them as " bad 
citizens." Never before in the history of Manchester 
did an able and respected judge affix so undesirable a 
badge on many hundreds of men who claim to be the 
leaders of religion and philanthropy in the city. 

5. — This brings us to a most interesting and important 
feature in the discussion — the lines along which it divided 
public opinion. What are plain men to say when they 
find the Bishop of Manchester, Canon Richardson, and 
Judge Parry on one side in the controversy, and Dr. 
MacLaren, Canon Hicks, and Dr. J. H. Moulton on the 
other? This clash of justly honoured names should 
challenge us ordinary citizens to independent thought 
on the question. Let us look past great names to great 
principles; for the main elements of civio life hang 
together in organic connection, and our particular con- 
clusions are never safely grounded except when based 
on general truths. 

6. — Leaving individuals, and coming to the Churches, 
we find, broadly speaking, that the Anglican and Roman 
Catholic Churches were opposed to the agitation, whilst 
the Free Churches were in its favour. " Quartus," writing 
in the Manchester Guardian, tells us plainly that in 
this matter the Free Churches are, as usual, in the right, 
and that the verdict of the future will be on their side.' 
But those who, unlike "Quartus," are not sustained by 
the comfortable assurance of personal infallibility, will 


take leave to not© the essential character of the agita- 
tion. To such observers it seems a vital distinction that 
in their past struggle for liberty the Free Churches 
were striving to win freedom for themselves, whereas 
in this instance they are attempting, not to widen the 
bounds of freedom, but to narrow them. Having rid 
themselves of religious disabilities, they seek to erect 
a new trade disability against a class they dislike. 
Ceasing to be persecuted, they would fain become 
persecutors. Surely this is a vital difference, and 
suffices in itself to reverse the strictures of " Quartus." 

7. — It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Wesleyan 
Methodism has officially intervened in this apparently 
local question. The President of the Conference (Rev. 
J S. Simon, of Didsbury), the President-Designate (Rev. 
J Scott Lidgett, M.A.), and Dr. J. H. Moulton, of 
Didsbury, have pronounced a decided opinion against 
the election of Mr. Holt ; and both the Wesleyan London 
weeklies, the Methodist Recorder- and the Methodist 
Times, took the same side. Mr. Simon, in a speech 
delivered in Manchester, disclaimed partisanship, and 
stated that ''Wesleyans were not party politicians." We 
shall examine this claim later on, and will at this point 
merely note the fact that a Wesleyan brewer was elected 
Mayor of Stockport in November, 1906, and re-elected in 
November, 1907, without a word of protest from Mr. 
Simon and his Didsbury colleague, Dr. J. H. Moulton. 
Yet Didsbury is as near to Stockport as it is to Man- 
chester. Most of my readers will feel, 1 think, that some 
explanation is needed, and will scarcely envy those who 
have to make it, especially as Dr Moulton, in speak- 
ing of his opposition to Mr. Holt, expressly wrote: "Had 
I known him to belong to my own party or my own 
Church I should have opposed him with equal or 
greater conviction." 

8. — The entry of the Free Church Council into the 
controversy is also a noticeable fact. The Rev S. E. 
Keeble, speaking in the Free Trade Hall, said that he 
spoke for four thousand members of the Free Church 
Federation in this district in his opposition to Mr. Holt's 


election. This body is coming to the front, and has not 
so far received the critical attention it deserves. What 
is its composition? What are its credentials? For whom 
has it the right to speak? On what lines is it developing? 
What is its sphere of action? What its methods? Some 
attempt will be made to answer these questions at a later 

9. — Another interesting feature is the fact that the 
agitators failed from the first to carry with them the bulk 
of the Liberal party on the Council. " That party," they 
said, "had sold them in the matter." Does the Liberal 
party in Manchester detect the essentially illiberal 
character of the agitation, and is it beginning to suspect 
that the kindred movement of passive resistance is 
equally a travesty of Liberal principles? Certainly the 
persecuting action of the West Riding County Council, 
some of the Welsh Councils, and the late London County 
Council hasi done much to open the eyes of the public to 
the true inwardness of the passive resistance movement, 
and the growing disillusion has been hastened by the 
overbearing tone of such men as Dr. Clifford, Dr. Massie, 
and the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell. 

10. — fi the Liberal party on the City Council declined 
to budge one step to please the agitators, the Manchester 
Guardian could only bring itself to go half-way with 
them. Beginning by mildly deprecating the controversy, 
that paper soon opened its columns wide to the tide of 
agitation, which raged and tore along in a flood that 
seemed all but irresistible. Correspondents of the baser 
sort instinctively gave prominence to the personal aspect 
of the question. In their hands the legend of Mr. Holt's 
iniquity grew visibly. Innuendo passed into direct 
suggestion, suggestion hardened into evidence, evidence 
stiffened into proof. Mr. Holt's dignified reticence under 
the storm of calumny was held to be the silence of 
conscious guilt. He, unlike some of his opponents, never 
forgot what was due from and to an English gentleman. 
When, at the proper time, Mr. Holt gave his vindication 
to the Council, to whom alone he owed it, the reply was 
crushing in its completeness. Then the Guardian, 


remembering, if somewhat late in the day, the part a 
great paper should play in the amenities of civio life, 
choked off its clamorous correspondents. From that 
time began that collapse of the movement which became 
visible to all in the November polls. Three points 
emerge which concern the Manchester public. Firstly, 
the enormous power of the Guardian to make or mar an 
agitation. Secondly, the pitch to which an agitation 
may attain in the columns of that paper without a 
corresponding movement of public opinion outside. 
Thirdly, how extreme is the position assumed by Canon 
Hicks and his friends when the Guardian deserts them in 
the middle of the fight. 

11. — One lamentable feature in the quarrel has been the 
extraordinary license of language and temper which the 
party of piety and philanthropy allowed itself. At this 
stage I will only name one instance. A private citizen 
who had been accorded the highest possible mark of the 
Council's esteem — the honorary freedom of the city — 
described Alderman Holt's occupation as the '' devil's 
trade." His words were, " This devil's trade (is) too wicked 
for any civic sanction or any private justification." It 
argues scant respect for the Council which voted this gentle- 
man the highest honour at its disposal that he should thus 
flout the Council's choice in the matter of the Mayoralty. 
This is the first time that an honorary freeman of the 
city has hurled so insulting an expression at a citizen as 
upright and worthy as himself. Let us hope, for the 
sake of public decency, that it will be the last. There is 
no reason why the controversial utterances of religious 
men should be marked by an absence of the restraints 
usually imposed by the feelings and habits of gentlemen. 

12. — An absolutely unique feature in the agitation 
was the presentation of a petition purporting to be 
signed by 2,430 citizens, and supported by 432 consentient 
bodies, " representing the conviction of nearly 148,000 
persons." One gasps at such stupendous figures. 
With Dominie Sampson, we exclaim "prodigious," and 
are lost in wonder. Speaking for myself, my first wonder 
is that those who supported the manifesto should exceed 


those who signed it in th^ proportion of sixty to one. My 
second wonder is as to what proportion of the 148,000 
were juveniles, incapable of pronouncing a rational 
opinion on the question. My third wonder is as to 
whether any of the adults included were counted more than 
once in their different capacities as members of various 
organisations. Sir T. P. Whittaker recently spoke of an 
extreme and impracticable element who were very noisy 
and " much in evidence in letters to the papers and 
resolutions from the same handful of people meeting over 
and over again in various capacities." My fourth wonder 
is that of the 2,430 citizens who signed the manifesto 
only a mere handful partly filled the platform at the Free 
Trade Hall demonstration. My fifth wonder is that out 
of the 148,000 sympathisers so few attended the demon- 
stration that the building was never quite full. My sixth 
wonder is what the 148,000 were doing on the day of the 
poll. My seventh and last wonder is that in all their 
demonstrations against Mr. Holt's election the protesting 
party did not hit upon the idea of holding a public 
review of these 148,000' stalwarts. The serried host* of 
warlike saints would have struck terror into the hearts 
of the majority on the City Council, and paved the way 
for that domination of the many by the few which becomes 
the true theory of representative government when our 
friends happen to be in the minority. 

Presumptive Evidench. 

Coming to our main argument, we begin by noting 
the fact that the proposal to exclude a brewer from the 
Mayoralty implies the setting up of a new disability. 
This in itself constitutes a strong presumption against the 
proposal. Disability spells persecution, and persecution 
is alien to the spirit of the times. Society, now fully 
convinced of the iniquity and futility of religious perse- 
cution, is little likely to enter on the path of trade 
persecution. The whole trend of modern thought and 
practice is to widen, not narrow, the bounds of civic 
freedom, and very strong arguments indeed will be 


needed to convince thoughtful men that it is either wise 
or just to reverse this beneficent process. 

Test by Probable Effect. 

Let us for a moment suppose the agitation 
successful; what would be its practical result? 
The badge of a public stigma would be affixed 
to the brewer and publican classes. There would 
not, as a result, be fewer brewers and publicans, but worse 
ones. To treat men like pariahs tends to make them act 
like pariahs. Public reprobation of a section means its 
moral deterioration. The influence of a degraded class 
is, in its turn, degrading. Hence the effeot of the 
agitation, if successful, would be to drive the best men 
out of the trade and leave it in the hands of those less 
likely to work their business in the interests of moderation 
and sobriety. Thus a movement springing from a horror 
of drunkenness would lessen the check on that vice by 
lowering the social and moral standard of those whose 
trade placed them between the drink and the drinker 

Burke has told us that it is foolish to indict a nation. 
Might we not say that it is both foolish and unjust to 
condemn wholesale any class which the recognised needs 
of society call into existence? Nowadays there is too 
much whitewashing of one section and blackening of 
another. The truth is that men cannot, in this simple 
and easy fashion, be divided into the two categories of 
angels and devils. We are mixed creatures. There is 
some evil in the best of us and some good in the worst. 
We have to live together in society and make the best of 
one another. The path of progress does not lie along 
the line of class-stigma and degradation, but in the 
direction of mutual toleration and kindly feeling. The 
public will get most out of any section by appealing 
to the best in them, not the worst. When good men 
forget this elementary fact, and flourish a brand-new 
branding- iron, with which they seek to mark a class not 
fortunate enough to be included within the range of their 
Christian charity, they must be told that what they wish 


to effect would not merely degrade the class at which 
their action is aimed, but also those very drunkards whom 
they sincerely wish to elevate. To make a necessary 
class into a helot class is poor policy, for the section so 
degraded requites society for the gratuitous injustice by 
infecting with its own debasement those brought within 
the sphere of its influence. 

Who is to Blame for Drunkenness? 

The root question of the whole matter is — at whose 
door does the blame for drunkenness justly lie? Common 
sense suggests that he who performs an act is the one 
responsible for that act. On this theory we judge one 
another every day of our lives. We blame the murderer 
for his murder, the thief for his theft, the libeller for his 
libel. The law of the land, which registers and gives 
effect to the general opinion of society, holds that wrong- 
doers must answer for wrong-doing. The Christian 
religion, too, teaches that the sinner is accountable before 
God for his sin. , When Wesley wrote hymns for 
" mourners convinced of sin," he was not thinking of 
penitents convinced of the sins of other people, but of 
their own. But our teetotal friends hold that the brewer 
and publican are responsible not only for their own 
sins, but for those of the drunkard too. That these two 
classes should be made a scapegoat to bear the sins of the 
drunkard into the wilderness of ostracism is grossly 
unjust, and impossible to be reconciled with any system of 
ethics, whether pagan or Christian. The correct view 
has been clearly stated by a prominent member of the 
" Citizens' Committee." The Rev. S. E. Keeble, in his 
work, "Industrial Day-dreams," says (p. 310) : "After all, 
working men are moral agents, and responsible for their 
actions." In these words Mr. Keeble surrenders the key 
of the position. If, as Mr. Keeble truly says, working 
men are moral agents, and as such responsible for their 
actions, the answer to our leading question is plain. Who 
is to blame for drunkenness? Obviously, first and 
foremost, the drunkard. 


The Craving for Drink — Historical Sketch, 

But, our opponents might reply, even if we admit that, 
speaking generally, it is the drunkard who is responsible 
for his own exoess, yet he has to contend with an internal 
craving for drink faced with the external opportunity for 
its gratification, and it is this disastrous conjunction with 
which, as a matter of fact, we have to-day to deal. Let 
us then consider for a moment the origin of this craving 
for drink. On such a question short views can scarcely 
escape being false views. The drinking habits of the 
people are not a thing of yesterday, Mr. Keeble assigns 
as one predisposing condition our keen Northern climate, 
which was certainly not invented by wicked brewers or 
publicans. His words are (p. 306) : " There is no doubt 
that the nipping, eager, wrathful cold of this Northern 
climate has predisposed the Anglo-Saxon race to the use 
of fiery stimulants ; but this predisposition has been 
largely fostered by the social and industrial condition of 
the masses of the people for centuries. Time was when 
beer, with its permanent possibilities of excess, was the 
staple drink at the meals at which now universally tea 
and coffee are drunk. The insufficient food, the exhaust- 
ing labour, and the degrading surroundings and habits 
of past industrial generations have also handed down to 
present times hereditary alcoholic cravings." These are 
wise words from the pen of Mr. Keeble. the author ; but 
they accord very ill with the attempt of Mr. Keeble. the 
agitator, to lav the blame of the drink craving on the 
shoulders of the brewer and publican. 

The truth is that no one can study the social history of 
England without being painfully struck with the drunken 
habits of the people. The rich and titled were as bad as 
the poor, or worse. What a record of hard drinking on 
the part of the nobility is condensed into the discreditable 
phrase, " as drunk as a lord!" The "three-bottle man," 
in the time of the Georges, gloried in his achievement. 
One of them, when asked if he had really drunk three 
bottles of port over dinner on a certain occasion without 
assistance, replied, "Well, I had the assistance of n bottle 


of Madeira to help i^down." At the banquets of the great 
it was at one time not unusual, in order to prevent cases 
of suffocation, to place a little boy under the table, whose 
duty it was to loosen the neckcloths of the guests as they 
fell senseless to the floor. It is recorded of one Lord 
Chancellor that, wishing to get away from a banquet 
earlier than the other guests, he achieved his purpose by 
slipping down to the floor as if dead drunk. Crawling 
the length of the table along the floor he escaped from the 
room without arousing the attention of his boon com- 
panions, who were themselves already too far gone in 
drink to observe movements a few yards away. 

As might be expected, the poorer classes imitated the 
richer so far as their opportunities allowed. At Haddon 
Hall the visitor is shown an iron ring into which was fitted 
the wrist of the retainer who had failed to drink the whole 
of his quantum of beer. As he stood with his arm raised 
and securely fastened, the liquor he had declined was 
poured down his open sleeve. This was in the old baronial 
days, and the hard-drinking habit persisted to compara- 
tively recent times. Readers of Dickens do not need to 
be reminded of the large amount of drinking depicted in 
his pages. Men drank on any and every occasion — at 
births, christenings, marriages, and funerals. They 
drank at work and at play, on week-days and Sundays. 
Feast days were often scenes of riotous drunkenness. 
Even the completion of a bargain or the casual meeting 
of friends was held to justify a friendly glass. All classes 
were implicated. The clerical predecessors of Canon 
Hicks and his Free Church associates and the legal prede- 
cessors of Mr. R. D. Darbishire were not backward as 
consumers of drink. The medical predecessors of Dr. 
Vipont Brown prescribed intoxicants, and in that case, at 
least, freely took their own medicine. Law-makers are 
also partly to blame, as in the notable example of Mr. 
Gladstone's Grocers' Licenses Bill, which, though good in 
intention, in practice promoted drinking among women. 
It is unnecessary to pursue the point further Enough 
has been said to show that the craving for drink, as it 
exists to-day, is due to the alcoholic habit of many 


generations of Englishmen. For that hereditary ten- 
dency, and the unfavourable social conditions which 
fostered its development, the nation is responsible as a 
nation. If blame is to be allocated in the matter, let it 
be impartially assigned to all classes, not unjustly 
accumulated upon one. If only the class that is without 
sin is allowed to throw the first stone, no stones will be 

Who Creates the Opportunity for Drinking? 

But, say our opponents, it is the presence of the public- 
house which spreads before frail human nature a 
" temptation " which, by reason of the alcoholic habit, it 
is often unable to resist. Who, then, is responsible for 
the drinking facilities which exist? Did the English 
people sanction the opening of public-houses in order to 
enrich brewers and gratify publicans? The idea is 
absurd. The vast majority of Englishmen call for the 
local supply by the publican of the article produced by the 
brewer, and it is to meet this huge demand that brewers 
brew and publicans vend the article asked for. Parlia- 
ment, voicing the will of the nation, sanctions the traffic, 
regulates it, and draws many millions of revenue annually 
from the business. It is obvious, therefore, that public- 
houses exist primarily for the convenience of the public, as 
indeed their name suggests. Like any other article offered 
for sale, drink must be vended somewhere if it is vended 
at all, and to meet the wants of prospective customers 
houses licensed for the sale of intoxicants have been 
opened under certain conditions in town and country. 
Hence the public-house, with its opportunity of reason- 
able use and of possible abuse, stands open, for it is 
impossible to supply the needs of moderate and reasonable 
drinkers — the great majority — without at the same time 
offering opportunities for over-indulgence to immoderate 
drinkers. ^ It is quite clear, then, that the temptation 
involved in the challenge of the open public-house to the 
man possessed with the drink craving owes its occurrence 
to the national demand for drink facilities, and not to the 
brewer or publican as such. 


What the Publican.mat justly be held Responsible 


Our argument, if admitted to be valid, suffices to clear 
from blame the brewer who is a simple brewer. A brewer 
is not a prophet that he should say, " The beer in these 
vats will be consumed by moderate drinkers and the beer 
in that vat by immoderate ones, so I will send out these 
and keep back the other." Removed as he is from the 
scene of detailed consumption, he is no more answerable 
for excessive drinking, which incidentally increases his 
business turnover, than a wholesale flour merchant or 
miller is responsible for the gluttony which has a similar 
effect on his trade returns. But the publican, brought 
face to face with customers of every class, finds his real 
responsibility beginning at this point. While it is grossly 
unjust to blame him for the existence of public-houses, 
with their temptation to moral weaklings, or for the 
drink craving, which, like the public-house, traces its 
origin back many centuries before he was born, the 
publican may fairly be called upon to conduct his business 
in the direction of n^pderation and sobriety. All excessive 
drinkijig on licensed premises should be discouraged. 
Not on account of the wickedness of the publican, but on 
account of the drunkard's folly, the law of the land has 
hedged round the trade with numerous restrictions. These 
restrictions should be loyally observed by the publican, 
both in the letter and in the spirit. The majority of 
publicans do act in this manner. They are respectable 
men, who conduct their houses in a reputable manner. 
The class of hotel-keepers, in particular, are, in most 
cases', gentlemen in the best sense of the word ; were they 
not so, they could scarcely fill the positions they occupy. 
Of course, publicans have some black sheep in their ranks ; 
but in this matter they are not alone. An objection that 
can be urged against every class loses its edge as against 
any one class. 

Clearly, then, it is the misfortune, rather than the 
fault of the publican, that the moral self-oontrol of 
certain of his customers is apt to break down over the 


consumption of the articles he vends. But so long as the 
publican honestly discourages excessive drinking the 
odium attaching to excess cannot fairly be laid upon him. 
As the reasonable drinker takes the credit of his own 
moderation, so the drunkard must acoept the blame of his 
own drunkenness. 

It is on this principle that people act in all other 
departments of trade. The sale of poisons by druggists 
is hedged round with restrictions, but these ordinances 
are not held to reflect discredit on the druggist who is 
subject to them. Everyone recognises that the regula- 
tions are aimed at preventing abuse by possible customers. 
No one blames chemists if in a few cases men poison 
themselves despite all precautions. Notwithstanding the 
great mischief wrought by grocers' licenses, we hear no 
wholesale denunciation of the grocers holding those 
licenses. So, too, tobacconists are quite leniently judged 
in view of the harm resulting from juvenile smoking. 
When we contrast the consideration with which these 
classes are treated with the harsh condemnation meted 
out to publicans, we realise how void of justification is 
the outcry against the latter class. The moral indigna- 
tion of our agitators is under such strict class-control that 
it is hard to attribute its censorious attitude to publicans 
to any other cause than prejudice. Their antipathy to 
the brewer and publican causes them to labour under an 
acquired inability to do justice to those classes. 

Not Brewer only, but also Owner of Tied Houses. 

There are those who admit that a brewer as such, or a 
publican as siidi, cannot justly be excluded from any civic 
office, but who object to a man who combines the two 
characters in his own person. It is hard to follow such 
reasoning. To be a brewer is no bar, to be a publican is 
no bar, but to be both is a bar. The combination <>f 
two trades contains a disqualification which was in neither 
considered separately. Zero plus zero produces a positive 
quantity. This is neither mathematics nor logic, but 
pure conjuring. If, as the proverb tells us, two blacks do 
not make a white, neither do two whites make a black. 


But, say our critics, ,Mr. Holt is not merely a publican, 
but a multiple publican — an owner of tied houses on a large 
scale. It seems to me little less than absurd to fight the 
Mayoralty question on so subordinate an issue as the 
expediency or inexpediency of the tied-house system. If 
that system is bad, let it be attacked openly and directly, 
not casually and incidentally. Let the honourable 
weapon of legislation be employed, not the dishonourable 
tool of social boycott. But the party of opposition has 
decreed otherwise. They prefer side issues and flank 
attacks. Possessing, as they do, in a marked degree, the 
faculty of making molehills into mountains, they have 
exercised their unrivalled magnifying powers on this small 
point until it bulks largely before the public gaze. In a 
scientific treatise the author, when giving a cut of some 
minute object, will tell you that it is magnified so many 
times, but our agitators wish their exaggerated pictures 
to be taken as representing life-size. 

Let us try to bring the matter into something like 
perspective. To begin with, then, it must be noted that 
the tied-house system is merely one example of an 
economic movement fey no means confined to the area of 
drink-supply One may very well sympathise with the 
small grocer, managing his one shop and living 
on the premises, without feeling justified in 
condemning the multiple-grocer as an outcast unfit 
to enjoy full civic rights. The same remark 
applies to the small boot shops in relation to such a 
boot firm as Messrs. Freeman, Hardy, and Willis, the 
head of which in Leicester has been knighted, and has 
also held the office of mayor of that town with general 
acceptance. So, too, of the single shop in general as 
contrasted with the mammoth establishment of a universal 
provider like the late Mr. Whiteley. A friend of mine 
who happened to meet Mr. Jesse Boot, of " Boots', Cash 
Chemists," fame, said to him, 'Well, Mr. Boot, I am afraid 
that my personal sympathies are rather with the single- 
shop druggist, whom your multiplied establishments tend 
to squeeze out of existence." Mr. Boot's reply was, " You 
must admit, Mr. C, that the old method was a less scien- 


tific mode of distribution. My justification is that in my 
shops the public are more cheaply and efficiently served 
with fresher drugs than is possible, on the average, in the 
single-shop system." 

This suggestive answer brings us round to the really 
vital question in reference to tied houses — Is the system 
injurious to the publio and to the cause of sobriety, and 
that to such an extent as to justify the exclusion from 
high civic office of all connected with it? We have shown 
that the multiple system is not confined to the drink 
supply, and that no such odium is attached to its develop- 
ment in other departments. For our teetotal friends 
everything connected with the drink traffic takes on a 
darker hue. Looking at the brewer through the coloured 
glasses of class prejudice, they impute to him the hue 
which only exists in their own spectacles. 

But let us pass from this general presumptive argument 
to the more detailed consideration of its effect on sobriety. 
It is obvious that the owners of tied houses are more likely 
to be men of social standing, and as such more amenable 
to publio opinion than an average individual publican 
" free from the brewer " can possibly be. I mean no 
disrespect to independent publicans, but it is obvious that 
such men can rarely hope to enjoy the position of a 
multiple owner. Noblesse oblige! High position carries 
with it high social ideals, a quicker sensitiveness to public 
feeling, a keener desire to stand well with one's social 
equals. Some may think that I am too optimistic on this 
point, but I eubmit that an English gentleman is likely 
to act the part of a gentleman in trade as in private life, 
and that a man of wealth has fewer temptations to 
encourage drunkenness than one of narrower means. This 
seems to me not mere good-natured fancy, but to follow 
from the very nature of things. 

The system of tied houses makes possible greater unity 
of control. Tal:e a single specimen from the region, not 
of mere speculation, but of fact. When Mr. Holt heard 
of the practice of distributing sweets to child-customers he 
ordered it to be stopped. It was stopped accordingly, 
and in all probability will never be resumed. Now, if the 


houses under Mr. Holt's control had been kept by as many 
independent publicans, the objectionable action might not 
have been brought to an end so summarily and effectually, 
and the guarantees against its recurrence would not be so 
solid and effective. 

The opponents of Mr. Holt deal largely in suspicions. 
They make insinuation do duty for proof and imagination 
for fact. " Charity," says St. Paul, " thinketh no evil " ; 
but where a brewer is concerned our friends exemplify the 
charity which thinketh all evil. They draw terrible 
pictures of a tied-house owner unduly influencing our 
local Watch Committee. They do not realise how the 
advancement to high office affects a man of high worth, 
how it puts him doubly upon his honour, and how much 
more likely his fellow-councillors are to influence him 
than he is to sway them. Mr. Holt is not an ogre, who 
exerts a maleficent power over his colleagues whilst him- 
self incapable of receiving any benign influence in return. 
He is an English citizen, who naturally desires to conduct 
the houses under his control in such a way as to secure 
the approval of his* fellow-councillors. And if the frailty 
of a percentage of his customers renders some degree of 
over-drinking an inevitable incident of the traffic, it is 
his wish, as much as theirs, to reduce this undesired and 
undesirable excess to a minimum. From this point of 
view the association of a brewer and multiple publican 
with the other councillors in the government of the city 
appears to tend towards the better government of the 
houses he owns. And the higher the civic office, the fiercer 
is the light that beats upon his actions, the more closelv 
and keenly are they scrutinised and judged. Not only is 
there this external guarantee of rectitude, but the man's 
own sense of public duty comes into even fuller responsive 
play, and he resolves that his fellow-townsmen shall see 
him for what he is — a citizen incapable of prostituting a 
public office for private ends. The somewhat unworthy 
suspicion that Alderman Holt would, as Mayor, unduly 
influence the Watch Committee cannot be better dismissed 
than in the words of Councillor Thewlis, Chairman of that 
Committee, when he said, " Alderman Holt could not if he 
would, and would not if he could." 


The " Pushing Brewer " Argument. 

The British public, by their demand for drinking facili- 
ties, have practically created the trades of the brewer 
and the publican. Obviously, when a trade is thus called 
into existence, trade interests arise at the same time. A 
business created by the public demand, and living by the 
satisfaction of that demand, may reasonably ask for fair 
treatment at the hands of the public. A recognised 
business must be allowed a certain degree of scope. When 
a fresh district becomes built upon and occupied, a certain 
proportion of the new population may be presumed to 
desire drinking facilities, while a certain proportion 
objects to their being provided. Now, if Mr. Holt had the 
power to plant public-houses in the new district in the 
same way that a grocer can open his shops therein, and 
if he employed this independent power to any large 
extent, he might justly be called a " pushing brewer." 
But our teetotal friends know quite well that no brewer has 
any such power. All that he can do is to ask for a 
license, and it would argue poor business ability to seek 
a license for a district in which no one would use the new 
public-house if opened. In making his application he 
speaks for prospective customers in the new area. Those 
who object to the granting of the license are as free to 
state their case against the brewer's request as he is to 
produce arguments in its favour. Only when both sides 
have been heard is the decision given, and that by an 
independent and impartial tribunal. If the justices 
consider that a case has been made out, the license is 
granted; if not, it is refused. They do not permit new 
facilities without having carefully inspected the locality, 
and seen for themselves the requirements of the neigh- 
bourhood. When granted, the surrender of a license or 
licenses in some other part of the city is usually a condi- 
tion of the grant, so that the total number of licensed 
houses is rather diminished than increased. Mr. Holt, 
in his speech before the City Council, early in October, 
said : " Whatever new licenses have been granted to me I 
have given substantial value for them in the surrenders of 


ante-1869 licenses (purchased from other brewers), and 
so reduced the facilities for drinking in the slums." That 
a new licensed house should be opened in a suburb where 
the temptation to excessive drinking can more easily be 
resisted by the resident population, while beerhouses are 
correspondingly closed in congested districts, where the 
people are, from their surroundings, less able to withstand 
the temptation, represents, on the whole, a gain to the 
cause of temperance. 

Keturning to the point under discussion, it is evident 
that a licensed house cannot be " pushed " or " thrust " on 
a new district by Mr. Holt or any other brewer. As well 
might counsel for the Crown, in a criminal trial, be 
charged with pushing or thrusting a prisoner into penal 
servitude merely because he stated the case against the 
accused. He only sets one side before the Court, counsel 
for the prisoner puts the other, and the actual verdict is 
pronounced independently of them both. So the question 
of new facilities is practioally a sort of trial in which Mr. 
Holt is, as it were, counsel for the application, Mr. Batty 
or some similarly disposed gentleman is counsel against, 
while the ultimate* decision rests in the hands of the 

That Mr. Holt has not been more active than other 
brewers in applying for new licenses was admitted by the 
Manchester Guardian. Its words were: "We do not 
know that Mr. Holt has been more diligent in regard to 
it than his local competitors in trade." One wonders, in 
view of this fact, that the Rev. J. Kirk Maconachie should 
write : " It is constantly being asked where we are going 
to draw the line. I suggest that a line may properly be 
drawn between the reasonable supply of a reasonable 
demand and the anti-social practice of persistently thrust- 
ing a dangerous trade upon places that do not want it." On 
this we remark (1) as to the " reasonable supply of a 
reasonable demand " there is some confusion of thought. 
The words suggest that potential customers invite brewers 
to supply them with facilities, whereas everybody knows 
that it is the recognised part of the trade to apply for a 
license on behalf of those likely to use facilities. As to 


whether this demand is reasonable or not is the very 
point which the magistrates have to decide. If there is 
not a prospective " reasonable " demand the request for a 
license is not granted. (2) The phrase "anti-social" begs 
the question. Might not those in a new district who 
would use facilities if granted say that the opposing party 
were " anti-social " because they practically said, " We 
do not want facilities, and therefore you who do shall not 
have them"? Living in a country where facilities are 
the rule, they set themselves against this social rule, and 
seek, in an anti-social spirit, to impose their will on that 
large section of society which differs from them on this 
section. (3) "Persistently thrusting" is a phrase the 
hollowness of which has already been fully exposed. It 
simply means applying for a license. Mr. Maconachie 
seems as much horrified at this audacity as was Mr. 
Bumble when poor Oliver Twist ventured to * ask for 
more." (4) "A dangerous trade." The word "dangerous" is 
a pure appeal to prejudice. To call it a recognised trade 
would have been more relevant. We have already shown 
that the public created the trade, that rhe existing system 
is one of granting facilities, and that what element of 
" danger " there is owes its existence to causes towards 
which all classes have contributed. (:"))" Places that do 
not want it." This is misleading. If nobody in the new 
place would use facilities, the brewer would be foolish to 
ask for a license, and the magistrates would act unwisely 
in granting one. On the point as to whether a license is 
desirable, a new district is not a single unit with a single 
will, as Mr. Maconachie's phrase suggests. Some inhabi- 
tants are in favour of a new license, others are against it. 
The whole duty of the magistrates is to determine whether 
the former class is, in their opinion, numerous enough to 
justify the issue of a new license. If they decide that it 
is. the place in question is not a '' place that does not 
want" a license, but one that does. Mr Maconachie's 
sentence, which we have now passed in review, i.s seen to 
be crammed with inaccuracies at the rate of one to a line. 
Yet his letter was a not unfavourable specimen of what 
passed for argument on that side. 


"I*ushinq" Agitators. 

The present policy in England is one of permitting 
facilities, not entirely prohibiting them, but the attacks 
on Mr. Holt as a " pushing " brewer rest on the tacit 
assumption that prohibition is the national rule. Those 
who so strenuously object to all new licenses in growing 
suburbs are practically working to constitute areas of 
total prohibition. They are the "pushing" people, for 
they seek to " push " the principles of prohibition in a 
country that does not accept them. Their moral standard 
condemns the manufacture and sale of drink, and they 
never weary of " pushing " these standards on people who 
reject them. Living in a society which recognises the 
drink traffic, they pursue the anti-social practice of 
persistently "thrusting" their views, with insulting 
expressions, on their neighbours. Our agitators inter- 
feringly " thrust " their views as to the Mayoralty on the 
Council, and even when defeated at the polls they gave 
one last " push " by thrusting their wonderfully-signed 
"manifesto" on Jhe Council. To vary a line of Gold- 
smith, " E'en though vanquished, they kept ' pushing ' 

If I wished to express my condemnation of the 
unreasonable lengths to which this agitation has been 
carried, I could not better do so than by re-writing Mr. 
Maconachie's sentence with the alteration of two or three 
words. In its revised version the sentence would read : 
" I suggest that a line may properly be drawn between 
the reasonable presentation of a reasonable objection and 
the anti-social practice of persistently thrusting an objec- 
tionable agitation on people who do not want it." 

Brief Review op Argument 

We have now shown that the drink craving, which is at 
the root of drunkenness, is largely due to physical and 
climatio conditions, aggravated by an unfavourable 
social environment — that in the past all classes, whether 
ministers of religion, lawyers, doctors, or other sections, 
have contributed towards the present position of the drink 


problem — that the brewer and publican have been called 
into existence by the public for the convenience of the 
public — that the majority of Englishmen ask for reason- 
able facilities, and that there is a fairly general use of 
such facilities when granted — that the brewer, when he 
brews beer, cannot tell whether it will be consumed by 
the moderate or immoderate drinker, so that the moral 
character of the consumption is outside his influence, and 
therefore outside his responsibility — that the publican, 
when he opens his doors, cannot prevent the entry of 
intemperate drinkers 1 along with temperate ones 
— that so far any responsibility which exists is shared by 
the brewer and publican in an equal degree with the 
remaining classes of their fellow-countrymen and in no 
other, but that at this point the special and peculiar moral 
obligation of the publican emerges, for he is bound by 
his duty to the community to conduct his house in a 
strictly temperate sense, and to resist the temptation to 
exploit the drunkard's moral infirmity for his private 
profit. Our teetotal friends are apt to seize upon this 
clash between the interests of sobriety on the one hand 
and the immediate trade-gains of the publican on the 
other, as if such discrepancy were peculiar to the drink 
traffic. This is a mistake. The solicitor is equally tempted 
to pile up his bill of costs to an undue height, the doctor's 
immediate interest is against the too rapid recovery of his 
patient, the minister of religion is tempted to turn from 
the poor in order to pay court to the rich and influential, 
members of Parliament are tempted to neglect the 
interests of the nation in order to further their private 
ends, those who supply articles of food and druo;s to the 
public are tempted to rob their customers by means of 
adulteration, and so on through the whole category. In 
all classes alike a certain percentage vield to the tempta- 
tion incidental to their calling. Here it is a Palmer, of 
Pugeley, who poisons his patient to secure a friendly 
bequest ; there it is a Jabez Balfour, who passes from the 
House of Commons to penal servitude : here it is a rascally 
solicitor, who is struck off the rolls ; there it is a milk- 
seller, who is convicted for adulteration. Publicans in 


this matter are nether more than human nor less than 
human, as the record of licenses endorsed for mismanage- 
ment of licensed premises proves. But the ratio of such 
endorsements is small, and has greatly declined in the 
last twenty years. It is worth noting that while the 
proportion of offenders against the Food and Drugs Act 
in the way of adulteration reached, according to the latest 
statistics, no less than 9'3 per cent of the samples of food 
and drugs reported on by the public analysts, the per- 
centage of vendors of liquid refreshment whose licenses 
were dealt with for offences against the Act was quite small 
by comparison. These facts show that publicans do, as 
a matter of fact, generally carry on their business in a 
spirit and manner consistent with the interests of sobriety. 
Hence, any trade disability, such as is proposed by the 
Citizens' Committee, is quite unjustified. 

If brewers and publicans exist, they must rank not as 
half citizens, but as full citizens. It has been shown 
that there is no ground for discriminating against these 
two classes. Who are the men who clamour for the 
erection of new trade disabilities? A certain number of 
illiberal Liberals, who forget that one of the first princi- 
ples of Liberalism is civic equality — a band of " Free " 
Churchmen who give the lie to their name by seeking to 
make a class less free, and, themselves liberated from 
religious disabilities, strive to erect new trade disabilities 
against others — a band of philanthropists, whose love of 
their kind proves quite compatible with strong dislike of 
a portion of their kind. These ultra-good men, united by 
the bond of a common antipathy, and deriving from the 
gospel of love the inspiration of hate, allow Mr. Holt to 
be elected councillor without protest, then to be advanced 
to the aldermanic bench — still without protest — but when 
he emerges at the top, and is proposed for the Mayoralty, 
they proceed to tomahawk him quite in the spirit of a 
tribe of wild Indians out on the warpath. 

The Case of Oliver Cromwell. 

This dislike of the brewer as such is quite a modern 
thing. There seems some ground for holding that a brew- 


house existed in connection with Cromwell's family, but 
any such association of the great Oliver with the brew- 
ing interest did not prevent his ultimately attaining the 
highest office in the land — that of Lord Protector of the 
Realm. So great was the esteem in which the Puritans 
of his own day held Cromwell. And our modern Puritans 
take up the tale of his praise. A local Nonconformist has 
presented to the city the statue of Cromwell which stands 
near the Cathedral. In a recent publication of the Free 
Church Council he is hailed as one of the great "Free 
Church pioneers.'' Yet Cromwell's attitude did not always 
coincide with their's. In repudiating the claim of the 
Scotch Covenanting clergy to suppress dissent from their 
opinions in order to suppress error he made use of a 
remarkable illustration. His words were : " Your pre- 
tended fear lest error should step in is like a man vjho 
would keep all wine out of the country lest men should be 
drunk. It will be found an unjust and an unwise jealousy 
to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon supposition 
he may abuse it. When he doth abuse it, judge." 

Mr. Gladstone as Drink-distributor and Brewer- 

The case of Mr. Gladstone presents a somewhat similar 
difficulty He was for many years the " Grand Old Man " 
of teetotalers and Free Churchmen. Yet his practice and 
opinions in reference to intoxicants were not theirs. It 
was he who raised a brewer (Mr. Bass) to the pee rape 
under the title of Lord Burton. Moreover, by originating 
and passing into law the Grocers' Licenses Bill Mr. Glad- 
stone opened up new channels for the distribution of drink 
throughout the land, whilst Mr. Holt merely works on old 
and well-accustomed lines in this particular district. Yet 
those who now tell us in words that a drink distributor 
on a local scale and on old lines is not fit to be Lord Mayor 
of Manchester told us formerly by deeds that a drink 
distributor on a national scale and on original lines was 
worthy to be Prime Minister. 


A Rising Standard. 

Some urge, in reply, that the standard suggested by 
the teetotalers of to-day may very well be higher than 
that of past times, and that the movement they support 
is to be commended as part of a general rise in the ethical 
standard of society. We have already shown that the 
proposed application of the new rule involves civil dis- 
ability and class persecution, by making one particular 
section a scapegoat for the sins of the community. 
Progress does not lie along the lines of injustice, liberty 
can only suffer from narrowing its bounds, righteousness 
in civic life is not promoted by the perpetration of 
unrighteous acts. 

It is not open to Christian men to sot up for a secular 
office a higher standard than they erect for membership 
of their own Churches, and for the holding of office therein. 
If the Church, which claims to embody Christ's kingdom 
on earth, is not better than the world, it is no Church, 
but a mere organised hypocrisy. Worldly men smile when 
professing Christians virtually say to the brewer, " We 
call your trade '%he devil's trade,' but we gladly accept 
money made in this ' devil's trade ' to help on the cause 
of God and build houses for His worship. We admit you 
to membership and office in the Church, but w© do not 
consider that you are fit to be Mayor of Manchester. We 
are working up society to a higher ethical plane, and we 
are beginning, not with those inside the Churches, but 
with those outside. When we have sufficiently thrust up 
the world from below, we may in time ourselves rise to its 
superior moral level. In the meantime the growing 
sensitiveness of our conscience finds its first application, 
not on our immediate associates, but on those more 
remote. The operating stringency of our conscience varies 
directly, not inversely, as the square of the distance." 
This may be modern Free Churchism, but it clashes with 
the words of Jesus, " Except your righteousness shall 
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye 
shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." — 
Matt. v. 20. 


Practical Effect. 

We have already shown that the intolerant policy of 
the Citizens' Committee is radically unjust, and that it 
would be also impolitic to degrade brewers and publicans. 
Any such degradation would tend to lower the moral status 
of members of the trade, and thereby increase the amount 
of drunkenness. To throttle the brewer is not to throttle 
the drink traffic, although agitators act as if such were 
the case. The utter unfairness of their attitude makes 
one feel that they labour under an acquired inability to 
mete out common fairness to the other side. In the whole 
oourse of the agitation not one word has been said by 
them in recognition of the unobjectionable way in which 
most licensed houses are at present conducted. No one 
has given present-day publicans credit for the great 
improvement in public-house management which has 
taken place. The decline of twenty millions a year in the 
national drink bill within seven years, in the face of a 
growing population, is a fact to which they seem blind. 
The operation of Mr. Balfour's Act in steadily reducing 
licenses is equally ignored. Instead of dealing with these 
relevant and vital facts, they construct out of their inner 
consciousness a bogey brewer and bogey publican, where- 
with to frighten band of hope children and the general 
public, and steadily refuse to look at the real publican of 
flesh and blood. The reason is obvious. The truth does 
not fit in with the>r preconceived theory; hence it must 
be ignoted. If the facts are against them, so much the 
worse for the facts. 

Reaction on Personnel of City Council. 

Abuse of the City Council sometimes oomes from un- 
expected quarters. Miss Mary Dendy, speaking at a 
meeting held to promote the candidature of Miss Margaret 
Ashton, is reported to have said that there were " many 
duffers '' in the Manchester City Council. That lady has 
given special attention to the care of the feeble-minded 
children in the city schools. It is possible to award due 
recognition to this excellent work on the part of Miss 


Dendy, whilst regretting her rather contemptuous 
reference to the membership of the City Council. She 
owes her position on the Manchester Education Committee 
to the courtesy of the Council which contains these 
" duffers " in co-opting her on that body. Does not this 
appreciative act on their part deserve a better response 
than contumelious language? Perhaps Miss Dendy con- 
siders that as she has taken special care of the mentally- 
defective children in the schools, so she must exercise a 
similar oversight in reference to the mentally-defective 
members of the City Council. It stands to the credit of 
the " many duffers " in that body that they have at least 
sense enough left to recognise their own deficiencies, and 
judgment sufficient to supplement them by adding Miss 
Dendy to their number. This sign of grace should suffice 
to save them from that lady's scorn. 

It would weary my readers to refer to all the objection- 
able language employed in reference to the City Council 
in the course of this controversy. One man speaks of that 
body as taking refuge in a " guilty silence," because they 
transact their business in the place built for that very 
purpose — that is, the Town Hall. Another makes the 
ridiculous assertion that in following the usual order of 
procedure the Council had no " mandate whatever on 
the question at issue," as if the " mandate," whatever 
the word may mean, were a part of our municipal consti- 
tution. A third demands a referendum, and so on. I 
feel bound to express my deep indignation at the hustling, 
brow-beating tactics employed by those opposed to Mr. 
Holt's election, and in so doing I am only voicing the 
opinion of many beside myself. That a minority should 
seek to impose its will on the majority, that a self- 
appointed group of citizens should dictate to the duly- 
elected representatives of the people, and demand the 
withdrawal of Mr. Holt's candidature by the Council, when 
that body could not take such a step without incurring 
general contempt — all this was strange conduct on the 
part of men who profess adherence to representative prin- 
ciples. The voice of the people, it would seem, is only 
the voice of God, when it is an echo of their own. 


What is the natural reaction of this agitation on the 
personnel of the City Council? The -whole status of that 
body would be lowered if our agitators had their way. 
The Council would sink in public esteem, and citizen* 
of character and business ability would scarcely care 
to enter a body which was not allowed to govern the 
city it was expressly chosen to govern. Coteries of 

if responsible citizens would usurp the constitutional 
functions of the city's elected representatives ; and it 
would be seen that an agitation started with the 
professed intention of raising the character and status 
of the head of the Council, would tend to lower it in 
a most disastrous fashion, by keeping out of the Council 
the very men best fitted to perform its duties. 

Oxlt a Beginning : Obsta Principiis. 

Those who are inclined to think that I offer too 
vehement an opposition to this agitation, would do well 
to read the letters of those who attack Mr. Holt. In 
these we are fairly warned that the objection to that 
gentleman's election is only one engagement at the 
commencement of a long campaign. They are going to 
ostracize other classes in their turn. Nothing could be 
more explicit than the statement of Dr. Vipont Brown 
on this point. He says : "The question has often been 
asked, 'Where are you going to stop?' The true answer 
is, we are not going to stop. This is only the beginning 
— not the end." When brewers and publicans are robbed 
of their civic rights and degraded into a helot class, 
other sections will be dealt with one bv one. Divide and 
conquer is the maxim of Mr. Robert Lewis and his fol- 
lowers. Thev do not care to specify too precisely which 
class is to be the next victim of their intolerance, because 
thev need the aid of all the doomed classes in the on- 
slaught on that particular section which is the imme- 
diate object of their attack. Just as they see nothing 
immoral in their invitation to beer drinkers to condemn 
the man who brews the beer thev consume, so our con- 
scientious friends deem it highly moral to ask help from 



those about to Be harried in their efforts to harry the 
section under actual treatment at their hands. Can the 
Manchester public view with equanimity the progressive 
raid on class after class with which they are openly 
threatened? Would our city be a desirable place of 
residence if its population were sharply divided into 
saints and sinners, with the Citizens' Committee posing 
as the chosen people of the Lord in the Land of Canaan 
while the classes they viewed with disfavour would be 
the Hittites and Hivites, the Perizzites and Jebusites to 
be harried out of the land? If this prospect is unplea&ing 
to ordinary citizens there is only one way of preventing 
its realisation. " Obsta principiis" — stop it at the start. 

The Rule of the Saints — in Theory. 

Although those who propose to introduce the millen- 
nium into Manchester by way of a series of class dis- 
abilities do not at present care to name the sections 
marked out for their charitable attentions, yet they lay 
down certain guiding principles which are sufficiently 
illuminating. «Mr. Robert Lewis, who gave the lead in 
the agitation, writes : " In short, no man ought to be 
tempted to any wrong action." It is true that he applies 
his maxim to Mr. Holt's case, but, unless there is to be 
one rule for Mr. Holt's moral welfare and another for 
that of other men, the principle is of general application. 
Mr. Lewis cannot be allowed to set up tests the edge of 
which shall cut only against one man or one class. We 
are landed, then, in the millennium as conceived by Mr. 
Lewis. This ideal state is one in which no man is to be 
tempted to any wrong action. Utopia, according to our 
arch-agitator, is to be reached by the total abolition of 
temptation. This is the nursery view of life, and oan 
scarcely be acceptable to grown men, who have left the 
nursery some considerable distance behind them. Such 
men will prefer the guidance of Saint Paul to that of 
Mr. Lewis — " When I became a man I put away childish 
things." Manchester citizens have left their first child- 
hood behind them, and their acceptance of Mr. Lewis's 
dictum will scarcely be possible till they begin to qualify 
for their second. 


What Dr. E. Vipont Brown has in Store for Us. 

In a self-revealing letter Dr. Vipont Brown suggests a 
test which is not unlike that of Mr. Lewis. After men- 
tioning some of the classes which in the good time com- 
ing are to be degraded from full citizenship to the level 
of an inferior caste, he states, in so many words, that 
those will be considered unfit for positions of public trust 
"who take advantage in any way of their fellow-men." 
My readers will observe that this is not merely a class 
test, but also a personal test. Take the case of a medical 
man. We may suppose that Dr. Brown would declare 
that such a candidate's calling was no bar to office, for 
is it not his own profession? But even a doctor has 
opportunities of taking advantage of his fellow men, and 
a doctor candidate must be able to prove that he has 
not personally succumbed to these temptations before he 
satisfies Dr. Brown's condition. Obviously, then, we 
want first of all an inquisition of class"es with a view to 
objectionable occupations being placed along with brewers 
and publicans on the list of pariahs, and in the next 
place we shall need an individual inquisition to determine 
whether any particular candidate from an uncondemned 
class is fit for public office. May I be allowed to suggest 
the name of Dr. Brown for the post of Grand Inquisitor? 
Should our new censor require assistance in his task, 
members of the Citizens Committee could be called in 
to examine the public and private life of candidates for 
public office. They could scarcely have a more congenial 
task. The only difficulty is that Manchester citizens 
may decline to bow their heads to such a yoke. 

The President op the Wesleyan Conference. 

The Rev. J. S. Simon, Governor of Didsbury College 
and President of the Wesleyan Conference, has also 
intervened in this controversy, and indicated a test to 
be applied to candidates for the mayoralty. His words 
are: — "We have a very strong belief that in reference 
to our highest civic officer he should be a man without 


reproach and without shame, and a man who can stand 
forth and say : ' Through my influence or the influence 
of my business no harm is done to any living soul.' " 
The standard is a high one; too high, I fear, for this 
world of weak and sinful men. How many members 
even of the Citizens' Committee itself can lay their 
hands on their hearts and truthfully say " Through my 
influence no harm is done to any living soul " 1 Have 
they not by their recent action done grievous wrong to 
an upright and honourable man? The truth is that if 
Mr. Simon's test is to be construed literally certain 
high offices could never be filled, and it is doubtful 
whether the presidency of the Wesleyan Conference 
might not occasionally be vacant for want of a qualified 
candidate. Let me respectfully ask Mr. Simon to judge 
his own action by his own standard. Manchester and 
Stockport are about equidistant from his residence at 
Didsbury College. In Stockport a Wesleyan brewer 
was elected mayor of that town in 1906, and re- 
elected in November, 1907, without a word of remark 
from Mr. Simon, whilst in Manchester the proposal to 
appoint a brewer who does not happen to be a Wesleyan 
has met with his public and strenuous opposition. If 
it was the proper course to keep silence in reference to 
the Stockport appointment the same rule should have 
been followed in reference to the Manchester one. If, 
on the other hand, opposition to Mr. Holt's nomination 
was dictated by conscience, the same conscience should 
have suggested a similar action in regard to Stockport. 
Mr. Simon stands condemned by his own standard, for 
either he has wronged Mr. Holt by an unwarranted 
public attack or he has, as chief pastor of the Wesleyan 
body, been lacking in faithfulness of rebuke to a brewer 
member of his own church. 

Three Voices in Unison. 

Considering that Mr. Robert Lewis, Dr. Vipont Brown, 
and the Rev. J. S. Simon stated the opinions just quoted 
quite independently of each other, their unanimity is re- 

markable, and, as Carlyle might have said, " significant 
of much." Mr Lewis, whose tone and attitude in this 
controversy have tempted many Manchester men to wrath, 
holds that " no man is to be tempted to any wrong 
action." Dr. Brown, who by his bitter attacks on Mr. 
Holt has taken an unfair advantage of a fellow man, 
demands candidates for public offices who do not " take 
advantage in any way of their fellow men." The Rev. 
J S. Simon, who, by the geographical variation in his 
moral standards, has done harm to many living souls, 
calls for men who can say '' Through my influence no 
harm is done to any living soul." If these three gentle- 
men are to be our " custodes morum " we may well 
ask: " Quis custodes custodiet"? Poor, weak, frail 
human nature looks up at the sky-high standard erected 
by our trio and begs for something a little more prac- 
ticable and reasonable in this work-a-day world. For 
society is not exclusively composed of wax-work models 
equally beyond the reach of the temptation which Mr. 
Lewis deprecates and free from the carnal imperfections 
to which Dr. Brown and Mr. Simon object. The mil- 
lennium is not to be reached by means which contradict 
the facts of human nature. In the words of Hood: — 

" Utopia is a pleasant place, 
But how shall I get there? 
Straight down the crooked lane, 
And all round the square." 

The Reign of toe Saints — in Practice. 

We have so far discussed the proposed reign of the 
saints as a matter of theory, but fortunately the pages 
of history are available to show us what it has meant 
in practice. History writes her records in vain if we 
learn no lessons from them. The tale of past blunders 
should warn us against their repetition in the present. 
Let us turn, then, from the Puritans of to-day, who covet 
the chance of dominating Manchester life, to the Puri- 
tans of yesterday, who had the chance of dominating 
English life. Take, first, the Puritan rule in the time 


of Cromwell, one of their greatest heroes. I give the 
words of Macaulay : " The Puritans in the day of their 
power gave cruel provocation. They proved as intolerant 
and meddling as ever Laud had been. They interdicted 
under heavy penalties the use of the Book of Common 
Prayer, not only in churches, but even in private houses. 
It was a crime in a child to read by the bedside of a hick 
parent one of those beautiful collects which had soothed 
the griefs of forty generations of Christians. Severe 
punishments were denounced against such as should pre- 
sume to blame the Calvinistic mode of worship." So 
much for the Puritan conception of religious liberty. 
Some of the Puritans of to-day rail at bishops, but how 
did their spiritual forefathers treat the Anglican bishops 
of their time? Let good Bishop Hall serve as a specimen 
who, stripped of his episcopal revenues and nominally 
accorded a State income of five hundred a year, sub- 
ject to a tax of one shilling in the pound, mildly pro- 
tested against the unfairness of being compelled to meet 
the tax on an income which had not been paid him. 
Let us return, to the pages of Macaulay in order to see 
Jiow the Puritans treated society on its more secular 
side : " Against the lighter vices the ruling faction 
waged war with a zeal little tempered by humanity or 
by common sense. Public amusements, from the 

masques which were exhibited at the mansions of the 
great down to the wrestling matches and the running 
matches on village greens, were vigorously attacked. 
One ordinance directed that all the maypoles in England 
should forthwith be hewn down. Another proscribed 
all theatrical diversions. The play-houses were to be 
dismantled, the spectators fined, the actors whipped at 
the cart tail. Rope-dancing, puppet-shows, bowls, horse- 
racing were regarded with no friendly eye. But bear- 
baiting, then a favourite diversion of high and low, was 
the abomination which most strongly stirred the wrath 
of the austere sectaries. The Puritans hated bear-bait- 
ing not because it gave pain to the bear, but because 
it gave pleasure to the spectators." It is worth notice in 
passing that, unlike our modern Puritans, those of 


Cromwell's day had not discovered the gentle art of 
brewer-baiting as a substitute for bear-baiting. It is 
questionable if the modern Puritan is superior in this 

Only " The Godly " to Hold Public Office. 

Let us turn again to the impartial witness of the same 
historian. "The English Nonconformists became supreme 
in the State. No man could hope to rise to eminence 
and command but by their favour. Their favour was to 
be gained only by exchanging with them the signs and 
passwords of spiritual fraternity. One of the first resolu- 
tions adopted by Barebone's Parliament, the most 
intensely Puritanical of all our political assemblies, was 
that no person should be admitted into the public service 
till the House should be satisfied of his real godliness." 
Mr. Lewis, Dr. Brown, and the Rev. J. S. Simon must 
feel flattered to find their own sweeping requirements as 
to public offices so much in harmony with those of the 
Puritanical assembly which took its name from a pro- 
minent member, a leather seller, called Praise God 
Barebone. The family likeness between them is both 
suggestive and instructive. 

Collapse of tite Rule of the "Saints'' 

For a few years the people of England bore as well as 
they could this rigid and austere rule. Occasionally 
their patience was strained to breaking point, as when 
the Long Parliament gave orders, in 1644, that the 
twenty-fifth of December should be strictly observed as 
a fast, and that all men should pass it in humbly bemoan- 
ing the LTcat national sin which they and their fathers 
had so often committed on that day by romping under 
the mistletoe, eating boar's head, and drinking ale. 
This was too much for human endurance. The following 
Christmas formidable riots broke out in many places. 
The constables were resisted, the magistrates insulted, 
the houses of noted zealots attacked, and the Anglican 
service for the day, though forbidden by the Puritan 


law, was openly T-ead in the churches. But, despite these 
occasional outbursts, the people were kept under the heel 
of a military despotism, and it was not until the army 
became divided against itself that the real will of the 
nation could assert itself. Then it became possible to 
elect a Parliament free, not in name merely, but in 
fact. The " saints " were dispossessed, but the natural 
reaction from their austere rule was seen in the lament- 
able license of the Restoration period. 

Then and Now. 

It will be seen that the sway of the Puritans in England 
rested on the power of the sword. Rightly is Cromwell 
represented in his Manchester statue with his sword 
drawn. Puritan arms maintained and enforced on an 
unwilling nation the Puritanic standards. An armed 
minority dominated an unarmed majority It was the 
tyranny of the minority 

Manchester in this matter of the majority is menaced 
by a similar tyranny. In this instance, however, the 
minority does not rely upon the sword. Indeed, it is 
rather nervous at the sight of a sword, and talks with 
something like horror of that dreadful thing " mili- 
tarism." But it does not disdain to employ more 
ignoble weapons. Its conscience, superfine and super- 
lative as it is, allows it to use what a local judge well 
called bullying, hustling, browbeating tactics. In the 
words of Mr. Charles Hughes they think that if they 
throw dirt enough they will terrorise the majority 

The Massachusetts Case. 

In the case of the State of Massachusetts the Puritans 
of the Presbyterian order were in a decided majority, and 
used their power in such a way as to show that when they 
spoke of religious freedom they meant merely freedom 
for others to think as they did. They established a State 
Church, made and enforced laws against "heresy" (their 
name for religious liberty), examined Quakeresses for 
witchcraft, imprisoned and deported them, and forbade 


Quakers to reside in the State. When four Quakers, who 
had entered Massachusetts in defiance of this law, were 
ordered to leave the State, the intruders resorted to the 
policy of passive resistance. Their Puritan persecutors 
made short work of these passive resisters by hanging 
them all. 

The Moral. 

What is the lesson we leam alike from the English 
experiment of Puritanic domination and the Massachusetts 
one? Do not both go to prove that very good men, 
prompted by the best intentions, may act in a most 
tyrannical manner? The pages of history show how 
dangerous it is to tamper with religious liberty 
Englishmen, having learned the folly and wickedness of 
persecution, are little likely, after turning their backs on 
a system of religious disabilities, to adopt a policy of 
trade disabilities. Not even at the bidding of " Free " 
Churchmen will Manchester citizens make any class of 
their fellow-townsmen less free. 


Most, if not all, of those who have joined in the onslaught 
on Mr. Holt are religious leaders or their followers — men 
professing to guide their lives and conduct by the teach- 
ing and example of Jesus Christ. They claim to be 
walking in His steps. The appeal to Christian standards 
is one they are bound to welcome. Let us turn then to 
" the law and the testimony." It will not be time lost to 
compare, or rather contrast, the bitter unreasonableness 
of these men with the sweet reasonableness of their Master. 

Christianity Works from Within. 

The Christian mesaago is addressed primarily to the 
inner man. It works from within outwards. It reaches 
and purifies the very springs of being ; a clean life is but 
the result of a clean heart. "Make the tree good," said 
Christ, " and the fruit will be good." " Not that which 


goeth into a man defileth him, but that which cometh out 
of him defileth the man." The old Gospel lends little 
countenance to the modern gospel, which teaches the 
potency of environment — the supremacy of circumstance. 
The spirit of Christianity is too profound to be confined 
to any scientific theory or economic order or social system. 
Those who think it is so easy to fathom must be told, " Ye 
have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep." 

Affirms Moral Responsibility. 

The very heart and core of Christianity is the individual 
responsibility of every man to God for his own actions. 
The denial of man's moral responsibility dries up the very 
springs of individual reform, and there can be no social 
reform worthy of the name except by way of individual 
reform. If every one would mend one, all would be 
amended. No conceivable re-arrangement of unsocial 
units can make a truly social state. It is the fashion in 
some quarters to condemn as " individualistic " the old 
hymn which commences with the words — • 

" A charge to keep I have, 
A God to glorify." 

Where else should we begin but at the beginning? The 
hymn just quoted starts with a man's relation to God, but 
it does not stop there. It proceeds 1 to treat social service 
as flowing from a right relation to divine things — 

" To serve the present age, 
My calling to fulfil." 

As the cause precedes the effect, so our dutj T towards God 
precedes our duty towards our neighbour. To reverse the 
order is to put secondary for primary, and build on the 
model of an inverted pyramid — the very type of unstable 

The Rev. R. J. Campbell seems to me to make this mis- 
take. He appears to treat social relations not as the test 
and proof of a man's relations to the Divine, but as equiva- 
lent to the latter, or almost superseding them. Was 


Robinson Crusoe incapable of entering into personal 
relations with the Unseen before the advent of his man 
Friday? So, too, Mr. Robert Blatchford, in spite of his 
noble nature and keen sympathy with the poor, appears 
to be fundamentally mistaken in his theory of moral 
responsibility, or rather irresponsibility. Mr. Blatch- 
ford rejects the Bible, but those to whom I am now speak- 
ing may be assumed to accept its lessons. They will 
probably admit that King David, in his lament over a 
lapse which grievously affected social relations, struck a 
true note when he said : " Against Thee, Thee only, have 
I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight." When the 
ministers of religion, full of the spirit of Christ, say to 
the people, " Lift up your hearts," and the people, with a 
glad heart and free, faithfully respond, " We lift them up 
unto the Lord," the true Kingdom of Heaven upon earth 
will be at hand. 

Christianity Assumes Existence of Temptation. 

The Bible teaches that temptation is a necessary and 
inevitable part of a man's discipline and training on the 
earth. It does not say that '' no man must be tempted," 
but that every man must be tempted. It asks not that 
temptation shall be entirely abolished, but completely 
mastered. In the life of Jesus himself temptation faced 
and overcome was part of the ordained discipline — 

" He knows what sore temptation means, 
For He hath felt the same." 

The practice of society coincides with the Bible theory on 
this point. Not much praise is given where no chance of 
going astray was presented. A blind man casts no wicked 
dances, but that fact is not attributed to him for 
righteousness. The residents in His Majesty's prisons do 
not break the law, but their somewhat negative virtue 
wins them little credit. 

The Man Mors than His Surround inqs. 

The Gospel teaching implicitly denies the tyranny of 
mere oircumstanoe — the domination of the external over 


the internal. A man is assumed to possess power, by 
God's grace, over 'himself and, to some extent, over his 
environment also. That he really has this power to act in 
co-operation with the Divine influence has been proved a 
fact in millions of cases. Wesley could never have 
written his noble hymn for the Kingswood miners 
reclaimed under his preaching if unfavourable environ- 
ment had been omnipotent. Nor could the Salvation 
Army of to-day claim, as they do, to have recovered five 
thousand drunkards in the course of last year. What 
prevents our protesting friends from following that 
example ? 

Message or Messengers at Fault. 

Will they tell us that the Divine message has lost its 
former power to grip the hearts of men and to make them 
sober by the radical and inclusive process of making them 
Christians? That can hardly be, for if they believe 
that Christianity is a spent force, they are in a false 
position when they recommend it to the world. No, the 
failure is not in their Master or His message. 

But if the fault does not lie in the message, it must lie 
in the messengers. Nearly nineteen hundred years have 
passed since Christ sent forth His disciples with the com- 
mission to preach the gospel to every creature, for over a 
thousand years the Christian religion has been taught in 
England, for several hundred years the various Free 
Churches have participated in the responsibility for our 
country's spiritual and moral welfare. Why is the total 
result of all these labours so inadequate and unsatisfac- 
tory? To come to the special point under consideration — 
the drunkenness which still too largely prevails in 
England — why have not Englishmen been made sober by 
being made truly Christian? 

The Blame Laid Elsewhere. 

One would expect that the professed physicians of souls 
would take some blame to themselves for the soul-sickness 
which prevails, that men whose business it is to inculcate 


all the Christian virtues, including sobriety, would feel 
themselves covered with shame before God and man at 
their failure to do their proper work in this respect. 
There are few signs of such a feeling. They judge others, 
not themselves. Neglectful of the beam in their own eye, 
they would fain extract the mote out of the brewer's eye. 
Gathering round them the robes of their self-righteousness, 
they exclaim against a brewer coming between them and 
the wind of their holiness. 

Not "1st His Steps." 

We have shown that the Christian teachers who lead 
this agitation run counter to some of the primal elements 
of Christian teaching. For they lay stress on external 
influences rather than internal, they nullify or reduce 
the principle of a man's direct responsibility for his own 
deeds and lay the blame of them on another class, their 
idea of virtue is the absence or extinction of temptation, 
and they make environment more potent than character. 

Let us turn from theory to practice, from underlying 
principles to the life and conduct of their great Exemplar. 
Are they walking "in His steps"? Their model seems 
rather to be Christ's forerunner, the ascetic John the 
Baptist, who himself said of Christ, "He must increase, 
but I must decrease." Jesus contrasted John, who came 
" neither eating nor drinking," with Himself, the Son of 
Man, who came both " eating and drinking," and of Avhom 
the Pharisees of that day said, " Behold a gluttonous man 
and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." He 
condemned the scribes" and Pharisees for setting up petty 
rules of their own to the neglect of the vital elements of 
religion — " Laying aside the commandment of God, ye 
hold the tradition of men." The "publicans" of that 
day — i.e., the tax gatherers who collected the impost 
exacted by their hated Roman rulers from the Jews, were 
perhaps the most unpopular class of this time. Yet He 
associated with them, and in the well-known parable drew 
a picture of the Pharisee and publican, very much to the 
advantage of the latter. 


Just as our local critics wish. Manchester to have no 
dealings with a b/ewer, so, in Christ's time, " the Jews 
had no dealings with the Samaritans." Yet, in the 
touching parable of " The Good Samaritan," He represents 
the priest and Levite as passing by their wounded fellow- 
countryman, 'leaving him to be relieved by the despised 

Puzzle — To Find thk Bandit. 

A month or two ago the Bev. F B. Meyer, who now 
acts as a sort of ministerial agent of the Free Church 
Federation, said publicly that he regarded the publican, 
along with two other classes he named, as the " bandits " 
of the present day. When he was asked if it was consis- 
tent with his sacred calling to hold up to opprobrium 
reputable tradesmen, he defended himself by comparing 
publicans to the bandits who fell on the hapless traveller 
in the parable just referred to. Mr. Meyer further attri- 
buted all the blame for drunkenness to the publicans; 
even the existence of public-houses, which is due to a 
general demand, was laid at their door. How different is 
all this from the spirit of the Master, who represented 
the traveller in trie parable as neglected by the priest and 
Letite — the representatives of Mr. Meyer's own class, and 
tended by a member of that abused race on which the 
religious teachers of that day heaped opprobrium. Such 
evil speaking and slandering as that indulged in by Mr. 
Meyer disgusts reasonable men and alienates that vast 
body of moderate opinion whose aid teetotalers desire for 
their forthcoming licensing legislation. If Mr. Meyer 
believes that publicans are bandits, let him be consistent 
and make it a criminal act to manufacture or sell drink. 
Bandits are not licensed by law, they are clapped into 
prison. We do not propose new legislation to regulate 
bandits ; we appeal to the criminal law as it has stood for 
centuries, and promptly lay them by the heels. But, of 
course, Mr. Meyer did not quite mean what he said. In 
calling publicans " bandits " he only employed " a termi- 
nological inexactitude." In attacking the members of a 
decent trade, Mr. Meyer has himself acted the part of a 


religious bandit, one of the worst species of the genus. 
What a spectacle for gods and men to see this reverend 
bandit flourishing his spiritual tomahawk with the fury 
of a wild Indian, and careering around with the soalps of 
the publicans in his girdle. 

Publican Linked with Brothel-keeper. 

As if it were not sufficiently offensive to liken publicans 
to bandits, Mr. Meyer, on the same occasion, linked 
together the publican and " the keeper of the immoral 
house." If we must, perforce, descend to the gutter level 
to which this champion of purity and exponent of Christian 
charity chooses thus to degrade the controversy, we would 
ask one question, which will show the wide difference 
between the publican and the other class with which he 
was associated. Can anyone imagine an England in 
which brothels were licensed by the justices and a State 
revenue of many millions drawn from the business in the 
same way as is done with the drink trade? One shrinks 
from the very idea, and the moral revulsion we feel is 
a measure both of the difference between the publican and 
the brothel-keeper and of the gravity of the insult implied 
in their suggested association. We in Manchester recall 
with regret an abusive remark made by a local dignitary 
of the Church. Speaking in much the same vein as Mr. 
Meyer, he said that he would as soon accept money for 
church purposes from a brothel-keeper as from a brewer. 
Such bitterly abusive language injures the cause it is 
intended to serve. It rallies to the side of the brewer 
and publican that large neutral class who have no strong 
prepossessions in the matter, and who desire no legislation 
which is heralded by public insult, rooted in partisan 
passion and aimed by vindictive and spoliatory methods 
rather at ruining drink-sellers than at checking the evils 
of drunkenness. The majority of Englishmen will decline 
to measure the value of any proposed legislation by the 
financial damage it inflicts on those connected with the 
drink trade. They sincerely desire to treat the brewer 
with substantial justice, and Mr. Meyer's outburst opens 


their eyes to the fact that he and those who think with 
him hate the brewer too much to be able to treat him 
with ordinary fairness. The licensing legislation of 1908 
is thus partially discredited beforehand by those who call 
for it, while, so far as Mr. Meyer succeeds in attaching 
an undeserved stigma to publicans as a class, his action 
tends to drive the best men out of the trade. To lower 
the character of publicans is, I suppose, his way of im- 
proving the management of public-houses. 

If Tou Fight, Fight Fairly. 

On one occasion John Wesley, when entering on a con- 
troversy in reply to a challenge, said that he did so with 
the greatest reluctance, because, in all the arguments be- 
tween professing Christians which he had observed in 
his lifetime only two men had conducted their case in 
a manner befitting the true follower of Christ. What was 
true 150 years ago unhappily holds to-day, when we have 
abusive names made to do duty for argument, and those 
outsiders who venture to differ from our censors are deemed 
to have something amiss with their head or heart, or with 
both. The commonest pugilist of the past generation, who 
boasted no superfine conscience and professed no heaven- 
born morality, but who was man enough and Englishman 
enough to scorn delivering a blow condemned by the rules 
of the ring, might have given a lesson in fairness to this 
minister of the Free Church Federation. He does not 
disdain to hit below the belt. Appeals to class prejudice 
and class hatred are quite within his range. His inju- 
rious imputations rank him with those controversialists 
who " poison the wells " of discussion. 

The " Kick " of the Gun. 

Mr. Meyer should remember that he cannot with im- 
punity scatter offensive imputations broadcast. Curses, 
like chickens, often come home to roost. Foul names are 
apt to recoil on those who utter them. A censorious and 
intolerant section challenges criticism of itself. If Mr. 
Meyer as a minister of religion attacks other classes, he 


must be prepared to defend his own. Already there are 
men who ask why one class alone should merely as a class 
enjoy the prefix " reverend " ; why the order of their 
religious assemblies should be protected any more than 
that of other gatherings, and why those who do not use 
their places of worship (including some who consider the 
teaching given therein positively mischievous) must pay 
a higher municipal rate in order that such buildings may 
be exempt from the local rates. When in reply it is urged 
that the excellent moral influences which flow forth upon 
society from these centres of religious teaching justify the 
preference, these men reply that the preference so given 
is undemocratic and constitutes a breach of the principle 
of equality — that the teaching given within their walls by 
different sects is mutually contradictory, and so cannot 
serve the cause of truth — that by fostering a spirit of 
narrow-minded intolerance they exert an anti-social influ- 
ence — that the consciences of outsiders are aggrieved by 
being compelled to contribute towards the promulgation of 
doctrines which they reject, and that the ministerial class 
will be quite superfluous in the coming social order Just 
as Mr. Meyer calls publicans social bandits, so these men 
dub Mr. Meyer and his ministerial friends " social para- 
sites." Certainly the anti-social utterance of Mr. Meyer 
lends more countenance to those who attack his class than 
to those who defend it. If ever the day comes when 
clerics stand at the bar of public opinion to be judged as 
a class, the Free Church Federation will doubtless send 
Mr. Meyer as an envoy to the publicans to secure their 
support against opponents who hurl at his ministerial 
brethren foul names and offensive imputations. " Social 
bandits " are, I suppose, the natural allies of " social 

The Spirit of the Master. 

Just as the members of the Citizens' Committee seek 
to drag brewers and publicans before the bar of public 
opinion in the assured expectation of their summary con- 
demnation, so did the Scribes and Pharisees of Christ's 
day bring to Him a woman taken in adultery for a like 


purpose. How did purity embodied treat this poor woman 
in her impurity? He displayed no haste to denounce, but 
by his silence and seeming disregard rather suggested re- 
flection and self-judgment to her denouncers. When in 
response to their repeated instances He did speak, it was 
to enforce in words the lesson suggested by His previous 
silence. The answer came: "He that is without sin 
among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Instead 
of the explicit condemnation of the accused which they 
anticipated, these self-righteous men were met with the 
implicit condemnation of themselves. Arraigned thus in 
the tribunal of their own consciences, they felt themselves 
pronounced guilty, and one by one slunk away. Then 
the Master, appealing to the woman's better nature, dis- 
missed her with a gentle exhortation to a purer life. 

Followers Who Do Not Follow. 

How different the spirit displayed by Mr. Lewis and 
his friends from that of the Master whom they profess 
to follow. He showed no harshness to a woman who had 
defied the law of God and the public opinion of her 
kind; they hunfr down an honourable citizen for supply- 
ing* a commodity the use of which is not condemned by 
the laws of God or man. But Mr. Lewis has no misgiv- 
ings on the subject. He does not stop to consult his 
conscience, or if he does, it is only to register its approval 
of his proposed action. Has not this same conscience of 
his urged him to veto by his passive resistance the will 
of the Imperial Parliament, and is it likely to check him 
in his efforts to veto the choice of our City Council? No 
restraint availed to prevent his flouting the will of our 
local rulers, disturbing the peace of the city, and sub- 
jecting to indignity a worthy citizen. Being without sin 
he felt justified in casting the first stone. And what a 
stone ! He threatened his fellow citizens with " an em- 
bittered controversy," and certainly he and his friends 
have made good his word. But plain men wonder how 
long bitterness has been a Christian product. " If a 
man have not the spirit of Christ," says the Bible, " he 
is none of His." Now the spirit of Christ does not 
exude bitterness. 


Who Art Thou That Judgest Another? 

Mr. Meyer, in attempting to justify his description 
of publicans as " bandits," enumerates some of the evil 
effects of intemperance, and proceeds to assume that 
all the blame thereof is to be laid at the door of the 
class he is attacking. What if we argued after the same 
fashion in regard to Christian ministers and Christianity? 
Shall we say that it is their duty to teach religion, and 
that they must answer for all the irreligrion which pre- 
vails? Shall we turn to the records of history and note 
the bloody religious wars which have occurred among 
Christians — among them one of thirty years' duration and 
involving in its desolating scope a considerable part of 
Central Europe — the persecution of one religious body 
by another as each in turn got the upper hand — in par- 
ticular the shocking treatment meted out by Christians 
to that ancient nation which gave them their Messiah 
and their sacred books. Where in all this is the charity, 
without which all religion is vain ? How do the churches 
stand the test laid down by Christ? "By this shall all 
men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one 
to another." Let John Wesley reply in his hymn on 
Primitive Christianity: — ■ 

'' Ye different sects who all declare 
Lo, here is Christ, or Christ is there ! 
Your stronger proofs divinely give 
And show us where the Christians live. 
Your claims, alas, ye cannot prove, 
Ye lack the genuine mark of love." 

I am afraid the lines are not without application 

When Ministers Begin to Discriminate. 

Religious teachers who resolutely refuse to distinguish 
between the brewer and those who abuse his products 
begin to discriminate when the enemies of Christianity 
draw up against it a long and heavy indiotment of perse- 


cutions, religious wa/s, hypocrisy, and crime recorded in 
the impartial pages of history. They commence talking 
of the distinction between the Church and the true genius 
of pure Christianity. They enlarge on the imperfection 
of human nature, even sanctified human nature. The 
heavenly treasure, they tell us, is " in earthen vessels." 
They dwell on the corrupting influence of unfavourable 
environment and the necessarily gradual evolution of 
events. But they cannot in common fairness employ 
these pleas in defence of a religion which from its 
heavenly origin might almost be expected to dispense with 
them, and at the same time deny the like considera- 
tion to men who only profess to follow a purely secular 
calling. If Christianity as Christianity is not to be 
blamed for the excesses and crimes of organised churches 
and of individual Christians, still less should the brewer 
or publican be blamed, not for their own excesses, but 
for the excesses of others. Just as the remedy in the one 
case is for all Christians to be true to the highest type 
of Christian character, so in the other department tem- 
perance is best promoted by encouraging all publicans 
to reach the stancterd attained by the best of their class. 
But*a policy that tends to drive out the best men in a 
class is scarcely the way to improve that class. 

Are We Not the Salt op the Earth? 

The opponents of Mr. Holt, whatever other virtues they 
may possess, are not burdened with an excessive amount 
of modesty or self-restraint. They never weary of telling 
th6 world what wonderfully good men they are, and 
how multitudinous are their activities for the public 
good. Employing their familiar weapon of insinuation, 
they darkly hint that those who differ from them are at 
the best suspicious characters. Now and again they 
venture to express what they usually merely imply, as 
when Dr. Moulton and Professor Peake were held up to 
admiration in the Free Trade Hall demonstration, and 
were set against two " beer-laden sots " on the opposite 
side. The Pharisaic contrast was loudly applauded by 


the gathering, but the words fell with sickening effect on 
the ears of at least one member of the audience. 

Of course we cannot admit, what they seem to suggest, 
that all religious and philanthropic workers are on their 
side. Probably Canon Richardson (to take only one name 
out of those who did not support the agitation) has done 
more in the work of uplifting the poor and degraded than 
the best of them. He has been too much engrossed in his 
task to find much time for public vaunting of himself or 
platform denunciation of others!. 

It is not my wish to depreciate in the slightest degree 
the philanthropic work done by our protesting friends. 
All honour to them for it. But philanthropy is essen- 
tially the love of one's fellow creatures — of all of them, 
not of selected classes. Genuine philanthropic work is 
work inspired by this love of one's kind. Wholesale 
condemnation of brewers and publicans seems to me 
misanthropic work. I admire the philanthropy of our 
friends as far as it reaches, whilst regretting that the 
narrowness of its range leaves room for misanthropic 
feelings in their hearts towards certain sections of their 

The essence of philanthropy is a heart of love, and love 
that objectifies itself in hate is not love at all. No amount 
of so-called philanthropic effort affords any guarantee 
of infallibility of judgment or justifies the condemnation 
of those who honestly arrive at a different conclusion. 
Christ Himself has taught us that men who in their self- 
estimate did much good in His name might be finally 
rejected as workers of iniquity. (Matt, vii., 22, 23.) 
"Many will say to me in that day 'Lord, Lord, have we 
not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast 
out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?' 
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; 
depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 

Of like import are the words of St. Paul on charity, or 
love. (I. Cor. xiii., 13.) "Though I bestow all my 
goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be 
burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 
^o that the performance of external acts reputedly " chari- 


table" does not necessarily imply the possession by the 
doer of the essential and internal affection of charity. 

Let us advance to some of the succeeding verses in the 
same chapter, noting the practical exemplification afforded 
by the action of Mr. Holt's critics in the recent contro- 
versy. " Charity suffereth long and is kind " — hence the 
" embittered controversy " threatened at the commence- 
ment by Mr. Lewis, and all too accurately fulfilled by 
himself and his friends. " Charity vaunteth not itself, is 
not puffed up " — hence the extravagant self-laudation of 
our protesting friends. (Charity) " doth not behave itself 
unseemly " — hence the hustling, bullying tactics which led 
an able judge to denounce them as " bad citizens," and 
which Manchester so emphatically condemned at the 
November pollsi. (Charity) " thinketh no evil " — hence the 
readiness of Mr. Lewis to insinuate a charge of bribery 
against a man incapable of such an action. (Charity) 
" believeth all things " — hence the facility with which 
every bit of idle gossip tending to the discredit of Mr. 
Holt was greedily swallowed, as if " believing all things " 
meant believing all that is bad of a fellow creature. 
(Charity) "enduretti all things" — hence the arrogance with 
which the minority refused to bow to the will of the 
majority, and, in disregard of all consideration for others, 
carried their protest to the extremest lengths. 

In reading the bitter attacks made upon Mr. Holt one 
wonders whether the writers admit that brewers are, 
after all, their fellow-creatures. In the days of the Lanca- 
shire Cotton Famine some small supplies of the raw mate- 
rial were obtained from India, and that sent from Surat 
was the most indifferent in quality of a rather indifferent 
whole. It is related that a minister praying extempo- 
raneously that Providence would send to our Lancashire 
port a large supply of the staple material, was inter- 
rupted by an operative member of his congregation, who 
groaned forth from his pew, " Yes, Lord, but not Surat." 
Similarly when our agitators are told that it is their duty 
to love all men, I can imagine their hearts, if not their 
voices, saying: "Yes, Lord, but not brewers." 


Take a Specimen. 

When I venture to recommend to our friends a little 
less harshness in judging others and a little more strict- 
ness in judging themselves, I scarcely expect my advice to 
be followed. Their self-complacency is proof against 
stronger attacks than mine, for has it not survived the 
crushing letters of Bishop Knox, Canon Richardson, and 
Mr. Chesterton ? Time was when " if the brains were out 
the man would die," but experience shows that when the 
brains of sound reasoning are shown to be gone from a 
cause the ganglionic centres of prejudice, scorn, and 
obstinacy may suffice to maintain a sort of action on well- 
accustomed lines. But if the leaders of this agitation are 
impervious to reason and to fact, Manchester citizens are 
not in such a hopeless case, and it may lend these latter 
a little aid towards reaching a right decision if I place 
one of the champions of civic righteousness in the light 
of publicity in order to see how far he satisfies his own 
tests. If Free Church clerics are to be our new masters, 
it is important to know what manner of men they are. 
At the Free Trade Hall protest meeting the Rev. S. E. 
Keeble said that he spoke for several thousands of objectors 
in his capacity as president of the Manchester, Salford, 
and District Free Church Council Federation. The indi- 
vidual to whom I wish to call attention was a prominent 
member of the London Central Committee of the national 
organisation of that body, and a selected preacher at the 
annual meeting in 1906. He resembled the Rev. J. E. 
Roberts in being a Baptist minister, and shared with 
Mr. Robert Lewis the honour of being at once a teetotaler 
and passive resister. I might add that he was, and is, 
the personal friend of Dr. Clifford. Hence it can hardly be 
said that in choosing the object of my criticism I have 
selected an obscure or exceptional or unfair specimen. 
The name is the Rev. C. F Aked, who was for several 
years minister of the Pembroke Baptist Church, Liverpool. 

A Champion op " Righteousness." 
My attention was first drawn to the Rev. C F Aked 
during the meetings of the Free Church National Counoil 


at Birmingham in March, 1906, when, in referring to the 
then recent victory of their cause at the general election, 
he used the following words : " We have not won this 
victory without help. Mr. Balfour has helped us. The 
devil is sometimes our best friend." We do not wish to 
dwell on Mr. Aked's courtesy, or the want of it, so we pass 
to the sermon which he delivered as one of the selected 
preachers for the occasion. Speaking from the text, 
" Called to be saints," he made a rather striking declara- 
tion against the present competitive system of society. 
His words were : " Perhaps we have come to close quarters 
with the incarnate selfishness of the world, have seen the 
crushed, maimed, broken victims of a blind, insensate, 
blood-stained competitive system, and cried out in our 
agony of pity against man's inhumanity to man, which 
makes countless millions mourn." A few months after 
uttering these words Mr. Aked was preaching a sort of 
trial sermon in the Fifth Avenue Baptist Church, New 
York, of which the most prominent member is Mr. Rocke- 
feller, of Standard Oil notoriety, and an embodiment in 
an extreme form of the commercial system so vigorously 
denounced by Mr. Aked. The ministrations of their 
visitor must have proved acceptable to the Trust magnate 
and his fellow Baptists, for they shortly afterwards in- 
vited him to become their pastor. In response to what 
the " Morning Leader," in rather questionable taste, 
styled " Mr. Aked's Call — an order from God," the offer 
was accepted. No sense of the discrepancy between his past 
condemnation of the competitive social system and his 
future association with a multi-millionaire Trust magnate 
seems to have troubled Mr. Aked, or even to have occurred 
to him. In one of his last addresses to his church in 
Liverpool we find him telling his people that they had 
" lived and worked together for more than sixteen years, 
fighting side by side the battles of civic purity, national 
righteousness, and religious liberty." Although Mr. Aked 
hasi never referred to the question of salary as influencing 
his decision to go to America, yet a brother minister, in 
giving what a friendly paper ("The Christian World") 
calls a " breezy tribute " to him, puts the matter frankly 


on a money basis. He congratulates Mr. Aked that he 
will not need now to pare his cheese nor look on two sides 
of a penny. " You are," he writes to Mr. Aked, " by nature 
large, expansive, flowing. Your habits tend constitu- 
tionally to methods of living which are expensive, even 
extravagant. You are attracted towards dash and speed 
and splendour. You hate the fellow in the motor because 
he handicaps you on your slower bicycle. You incline to 
breeze and mountain tops and champagne, and turn with 
loathing from humdrum and platitude and beer and shab- 
biness, and the vulgar wa}-. New York will give 

you all you want." If this " breezy tribute " passes for 
eulogy with Mr. Aked and the " Christian World," which 
was allowed to publish it, one can only wonder at their 
idea of eulogy. 

Fight the Trusts — or — Take Their Pay? 

Not long ago the Rev F. B. Meyer, a brother Baptist 
minister, said that the " Church should fight the Trusts." 
Mr. Aked's way of fighting the Trusts is to accept the 
pay of a Trust magnate. When in England he regarded 
brewery money as tainted, and the public conscience of 
America is still more decided in condemning Trust methods 
and deprecating Trust gifts. A movement was even set on 
foot for boycotting those institutions which accepted finan- 
cial aid from Mr. Rockefeller. Mr. Aked's conscience, 
though of the supersensitive kind, allows him to accept 
tainted money in America, after condemning it in Eng- 
land, and to ally himself with the Trusts which his friend 
Mr. Meyer said the Free Churches have to fight. 

" Not a Fool, But a Tool." 

The sharp contrast between the Socialist principles with 
which Mr. Aked made some play in England and his 
association with a Trust magnate in America, did not escape 
the notice of the " Socialist Standard." When people 
pestered Mr. Aked with begging letters because of his 
connection with a multi-millionaire, Mr. Aked rather im- 
patiently asked, "Do they take- me for a fool?" On this 


the paper just mentioned comments : " Rockefeller did 
not take him for a fool, but for a tool. The Trust mag- 
nates can foresee the approaching struggle between _ the 
have-nots and the millionaire holders of aggregate capital. 
They will endeavour to delay it by every possible means. 
In this they will be assisted by advanced clergymen, who 
will accept the slaveholders' dollars to preach patience and 
peace to the wage slaves." 

The Widow's Cruse op Oil. 

Without endorsing the full sweep of this indictment, 
one may very well wonder if Mr. Aked intends to stand 
in New York for that " righteousnessi " which he claims 
to have championed in Liverpool for sixteen years. Can 
he take the money of the Trust and be faithful to his 
ministrations to the Trust magnate? Certainly there 
are portions of the Bible which scarcely lend themselves 
to pulpit treatment at his hands in his new surroundings. 
It has been well said that Mr. Rockefeller's operations in 
oil have so raised the price of that commodity that every 
poor widow when she lights her lamp offers in that act 
" a burnt offering " to Mr. Rockefeller. We may be 
pretty certain, therefore, that Mr. Aked will never 
preach from the narrative in I. Kings xvii. 9-16, where 
the widow of Zarephath is represented as ministering to 
the needs of the prophet Elijah with a handful of meal 
and a little oil in a cruse, with the result that the barrel 
of meal did not waste nor the cruse of oil fail till showers 
of rain brought renewed plenty to the thirsty land. Far 
different is the modern version of that ancient story. 
Nowadays Mr. Rockefeller reduces the amount of oil in 
the widow's cruse, and Mr. Aked. misrepresenting the 
part of the prophet, so far from replenishing her scanty 
stock, ministers spiritual consolation to her despoiler. 
The story of Ahab coveting and seizing Naboth'si vine- 
yard will probably be taboo, suggesting as it does un- 
pleasant reminders of the unscrupulous methods by which 
the Standard Oil Trust crushed out of existence its! smaller 
rivals. And while Mr. Rockefeller behaved so much like 
Ahab, Mr. Aked acts so very unlike Elijah. 


" Thou Abt The Man." 

Or, again, Nathan's parable in reproof of David's sin, 
in which he pictured ,a rich man " with exceeding many 
flocks and herds," robbing the poor man, his neighbour, 
of his single little ewe lamb in order to entertain there- 
with a guest, would scarcely be selected for pulpit treat- 
ment. Assuredly the contrast between the prophet 
Nathan bringing home his charge to David's conscience 
with his fearless denunciation " Thou art the man," and 
the modern preacher who shares 1 with his patron the 
proceeds! of social plunder would be too obvious to be 

Rock(bfeller) axd Rivers of Oil. 

The old Puritan divines knew their Bible through ana 
through, and were wonderfully apt in discovering texts 
suited to any and every person and circumstance. Had 
one of these worthies been asked to find a Scriptural 
passage which connected " Rockefeller " and " oil," he 
would possibly have referred the questioner to Job xxix., 
6, which is not so very wide of the mark with the words, 
" The rock poured me out rivers of oil." But the texts 
selected by the Puritan preachers were not always com- 
plimentary. Perhaps they would have voiced the thought 
of myriads of poor Americans by flinging at the oil 
king's head the words of the parable of the ten virgins : 
'' Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out." But 
Mr. Aked will be more diplomatic. We know, for be 
has told us himself, that he is no fool. 

Pastor of a " Public Malefactor." 

Since Mr. Aked became associated with Mr. Rocke- 
feller the President of the United States has denounced 
the Trust magnates as "public malefactors," and a court 
of law has condemned Mr. Rockefeller to a fine of over 
five millions sterling for illicit trade methods. Has 
Mr. Aked dissociated himself from this man? Has he, 
the " conscientious " passive resister of two years ago, 


the preacher of " purity and righteousness for sixteen 
years in Liverpool," advisjed restitution? Has he in 
particular recommended his brother Baptists to restore 
the five millions with which this " public malefactor " 
endowed their university at Chicago? Nothing of the 
kind. Mr. Aked has indeed, in an address which an 
American paper characterised as " clerical buffoonery," 
poked fun at Mr. Pierpont Morgan, a millionaire in- 
deed, but not Mr. Aked's millionaire. And now, much 
to his relief, as he tells us, he is taking steps to become 
a naturalised American citizen. I can assure him that 
the sens© of relief will not be confined to his own breast. 

The Free Church Federation Linked With Mr. Aked. 

I have shown up the gross inconsistency of Mr. Aked, 
but the most remarkable feature of the case is that his 
friends in England seemed to be unconscious of any in- 
consistency on his part. No protest was raised to his 
appointment. There was a chorus, but it was one of 
congratulation. And in particular the Free Church 
Federation, for which Mr. Keeble spoke in the Free 
Trade Hall protest meeting, and with which the Rev. J. 
E. Roberts, Dr. J. H. Moulton, and Professor Peake (to 
name three leaders in the agitation against Mr. Holt) 
are connected, so far from condemning Mr. Aked's action, 
gave him a place on the official programme of their 
yearly gathering. The Free Church Federation set the 
stamp of their approval on Mr. Aked'si nomination by 
inviting him to give an address at the communion service 
held in connection with their National Council. After 
Mr. Aked had associated himself with Mr. Rockefeller, 
the Free Church Federation associated itself with Mr. 
Aked, and through him with his millionaire patron. 
They sent him from the table of the Lord to minister 
spiritual consolation to the embodiment in its most ex- 
treme form of that competitive system which a few 
months before he had so vigorously denounced from their 
own pulpit. 


The Link Between Mr. Aked and Mr. Meter 

The Lancashire papers of October 24th, 1907, contained 
a report of the recognition meeting held to welcome Mr. 
Aked's successor in the pastorate of Pembroke Chapel, 
Liverpool. The Rev. F B. Meyer, of "bandit" fame, 
was present, and made a complimentary reference to Mr. 
Aked, from whom a congratulatory telegram was re- 
ceived and read at the meeting. Hence we may infer 
that Mr. Meyer still sees no inconsistency between his 
exhortation to the churches to " fight the Trusts " and 
acceptance of the pay of Trust magnates. Mr. Meyer 
accuses publicans of being bandits, yet the Baptist de- 
nomination, to which he belongs, accepted five millions 
from one of the Trust bandits. The receiver is as bad 
as the thief. 

Not All Christians So Pharisaic. 

Dr. Gladden, speaking at the Triennial Council of 
Congregationalists at Cleveland, Ohio, preached to the 
churches self-examination rather than the condemnation 
of others. After referring, among other bad signs ot 
the times in America, to the tendency to the accumula- 
tion of power in the hands of a few and the tendency to 
use this power predaciously, he proceeded : " The church 
has gathered into her communion many of the most con- 
spicuous of the perpetrators of these injustices — they ; re 
nearly all church members — and has made herself a pen- 
sioner upon their bounty." Dr. Gladden is evidently more 
inclined to hear the church exclaim " God be merciful to 
me a sinner," than to hear her say, in self-righteous 
accents, " Lord, I thank Thee that I am not as other men 
are, or even as this publican." And this, we submit, is 
the correct attitude for Christians on this side the Atlantic. 
At any rate, our study of Mr. Aked will, I hope, have 
sufficed to show that the rule of Free Church clerics 
of his type would mean the tyranny of men, at once in- 
consistent and intolerant. We shall at a later stage 
examine the action of some of his brethren nearer Man- 
chester. At present we return to the main argument. 


What the Agitation Implies. 

Those who endeavour to ascertain the principles which 
underlie this agitation will see that what is constantly 
assumed, but never proved, is that the consumption of 
the brewer's products is essentially wrong, irrespective 
of the moderation or otherwise of the individual con- 
sumer. As the taking of drink is held to be an absolute 
evil, and as such to be condemned, so, too, the brewing 
and selling of drink are deemed immoral ministries to 
an immoral act. The total cessation of the manufacture, 
sale, and consumption of drink, and, as a means to that 
end, its prohibition by law, are implied. Now these 
views, which are on this side of the Atlantic mere un- 
warranted assumptions, are the accepted doctrine of some 
of the American States. Kansas, as Dr. Sheldon has told 
us, is one of those regions. In that State, brewing is a 
crime in the eyes of the law, and brewers are regarded 
and treated as criminals. It seems to me as factitious 
to make a criminal of the brewer as it would be to make 
one of the tobacoo'hist; but, however that may be, no one 
can say that the Kansas people are inconsistent with 
themselves. From Kansas premises they draw Kansas 
conclusions. Do our local agitators act with similar 
consistency by drawing English conclusions from Englisn 
premisses 1 Not at all. Living in a country where more 
than three-fourths of the people think it right to take 
drink, they ask the drinkers who create the brewer to gird 
at the brewer they create. This is to make mock of 
common justice and common fairness. You may grow 
Kansas fruit on the Kansas tree, or English fruit on the 
English tree; but not Kansas fruit on the English tree. 
That would be a contradiction in the nature of things. 

What Consistency Requires. 

The Christians who lead this agitation must be con- 
sistent, and purge their churches 1 of all complicity in 
a traffic which, they tell us, is accountable for so much 
misery and sin. A brewer is, on their theory, an open 


and notorious sinner. If so, let him be treated as such, 
and excluded from the church, just as professional thieves 
would be. So, too, no publican could become a church 
member. The money of brewers and publicans is tainted, 
and must not be accepted for Christian purposes. To 
a member of either of these classes who offers financial 
aid, the church must reply : " Thy money perish with 
thee." As drinking, like theft, is an absolute evil, no 
drinker, however " moderate," can be admitted to mem- 
bership any more than can a thief. Indeed, the word 
" moderate " does not apply. We might as well speak of 
a "moderate thief." Drinking and thieving are alike 
essentially bad, and no terms can be made wtih either. 

Such are the consequences which flow from the assump- 
tions made by our friends. If the Free Churches admit 
drinkers to their membership, if they accept (as they 
nearly all do) the contributions of drinkers and brewers, 
they are infected with the taint they denounce, and must 
first cast the beam out of their own eye before they seek 
to extract the mote from the eyes of others. Those who 
judge their fellows should first judge themselves, and only 
start to cleanse society when their own hands are clean. 

Glass aot» Pipe. 

Members of the Salvation Army are required to abstain 
both from intoxicants and tobacco. Teetotal opinion in 
the Free Churches has made teetotalism an almost 
essential feature in a minister's qualifications for office; 
but the opponents of tobacco have not yet succeeded in 
extinguishing the minister's pipe. Most of them are 
smokers, some of them rather heavy ones. They take no 
drink-offering to the shrine of Bacchus, but they present 
a copious burnt-offering at another altar. Alcohol the 
poison is banned, nicotine the poison is adored. Not .• 11 
the deplorable effects of juvenile smoking suffice to pre- 
vent their setting an example to the rising generation 
which, on teetotal principles, is most reprehensible. 
Will they be consistent with the rules they lay down in 
this controversy, surrender their beloved pipes, ban the 


tobacconist, and protest that no tobacconist must ever be 
Mayor of Manchester 1 Not so ; they will stick to their 
pipes, and " out of the same mouth will proceed blessing 
and cursing" — blessing for the tobacconist and cursing for 
the brewer. According to them, when Old King Cole 
called for his glass he was a very bad man, but when 
" he called for his pipe " he was only doing what certain 
exceedingly good men do, and so was in that respect free 
from blame. One penalty of erecting factitious standards 
is that they cannot be honestly applied all round. Those 
who state principles in view of a particular case are at 
a loss when an opponent makes an application of their 
own rule in a sphere where they find consistency incon- 
venient. When confronted with the contradiction in- 
volved, they must either conscientiously adjust their 
conduct to their rule or cast discredit on the rule and on 
themselves by allowing party interests to govern the 
application of principles. In this case our friends will 
probably choose the latter course. They will go on 
puffing at home and abroad, and in their clerical confer- 
ences, after passiifg resolutions against the opium trade, 
will "rush off to enjoy their particular opiate in the smoke 
room, which is a necessary adjunct of such gatherings. 

The Slave Trade Argument. 

The argument in favour of brewer persecution based 
on a rising ethical standard has been already answered in 
its general form, but a particular case of it — that based 
on the slave trade — has been advanced in this controversy. 
We are told that just as the national conscience at one 
time tolerated the slave trade and slave-holding, but after- 
wards came to see the iniquity of the whole thing, so the 
present objection to the drink traffic and to brewer- 
mayors is a mark of growth in the national conscience 
Let us consider this plea a little more particularly. In 
the first place, we note that the drink trade can be traced 
back over a thousand years in the national history, whilst 
the slave trade was of comparatively brief duration. In 
the second place, fully three-fourths of the nation dtill 


see no harm in consuming drink, and the proportion was 
still greater in times past, whilst the number of slave 
traders and slave owners was a small fraction of the 
nation, and many of the latter were not resident in Eng- 
land. In the third place, drinking went on in this coun- 
try, but slave-holding was not allowed here. In the fourth 
place, large national revenue was, and is, drawn from the 
liquor traffic; not so with the slave trade. In the fifth 
place, the national conscience has never sweepingly con- 
demned the liquor traffic as a whole, but the national 
conscience did feel the continuance of the slave trade to 
be unendurable. Be it noted that although on all the 
five points just enumerated the complicity of the nation 
in the slave trade was only fractional as compared with 
the fuller degree in which it has been, and is. involved 
in the liquor traffic, yet in the case of the slave trade 
when the national conscience was stirred there ensued 
a national recognition of national complicity therein. 
There was no attempt to lay the sins of a people on a 
scapegoat class and punish a section for what was felt 
to be more or less the fault of all. Our modern teetotalers 
act very differentlv Ignoring historv and defvinsr 
justice, thev hold the present generation of brewers 
responsible for the history of English drinking hundreds 
of years before they were born. When slave owning was 
brought to a close, the nation compensated the owners to 
the extent of twentv millions of public money. rhe 
United Kingdom Alliance seeks to close public-houses 
without compensation. Lastly, although the wealth of 
Liverpool had been largely built up on the slave trade, 
and many respectable families were implicated therein, 
neither Liverpool as a city nor Liverpool citizens con- 
nected with the condemned trade were punished by public 
reprobation. As the modern theory of conscience which 
believes it right to be virtuous at other people's expense 
had not been developed, so the mean attempt to use social 
boycott and civic disability aR weapons of attack nsrainst 
individuals was not then devised. The Gladstone family, 
for example, was largely involved, and the first speech 
Mr. Gladstone made in the House of Commons was in 


favour of better terms for slave owners. Yet Mr. Glad- 
stone's political opponents made no attempt to exclude 
him from high station on this plea. By their magnani- 
mous silence on the subject they allowed his connection 
with the trade to drop into oblivion. I have often 
wondered whether the Liberal party would have displayed 
a like reticence if Mr. Balfour and his family had been 
similarly involved'. The shabby treatment meted out by 
our protesting friends to Mr. Holt suggests the answer to 
this question. 

The Psychological Snake op Teetotalism. 

The radical mistake of militant teetotalism is connected 
with a well-known fact of mind — the tendency to allow 
the means selected for the attainment of an end to absorb 
the interest to such a pitch as to throw the original end 
into the background and lead to action resulting rather 
in its detriment than in its furtherance. It is, in short, 
the sacrifice of ends to means. The secondary comes to 
rank before the primary, the servant rises to be the 
master of his* former master. Let me illustrate by the 
ease of the miser. Now, no man deliberately Sets out 
to be a miser. That is the point at which he finally 
arrives, but it is not the end at which he first aimed. 
No, the mental picture which he set before himself at the 
outset was the possession of sufficient means to secure 
comfort in his old age. That was the end at which he 
aimed. But the attainment of that end demanded the 
employment of certain means, and these means were 
acquisition and the restriction of personal expenditure. 
But as time went on the habit and love of acquisition grew 
upon him, and he pinched himself more and more in 
order to augment his rate of saving. The increase of his 
heard, which was originally merely a means to his future 
comfort, became an end in itself. ' In the pursuit of this 
substituted end the miser sacrifices the very comfort 
which he started to secure. What was to begin, with 
merely the road to a goal becomes the goal, and present 
self-denial, which was intended at some future time to 


give place to comfort, is continued when the very idea 
of comfort has vanished from his mental horizon. 
Writers on mental science call this psychological ten- 
dency the transference of interest by association. 

Jonah an Illustration. 

The best of men are not exempt from this human 
frailty. We will take our second example from the Bible. 
Jonah, prophet of the Lord, was sent to the people of 
Nineveh to warn them that for their sins the city would 
be overthrown in forty days. The people, repenting of 
their wrong-doing, turned from their evil ways. God saw 
their repentance, and remitted the threatened punishment. 
Jonah would surely rejoice at such a happy issue of his 
mission? Nothing of the kind. Starting as the bearer 
of God's warning message, he had come to identify him- 
self, the messenger, with the literal fulfilment of his 
dreadful message. The end, the repentance of the people 
and their forgiveness as a result of Jonah's mission, was 
lost in the care of Jonah for his precious reputation as 
a prophet. The personal element was introduced, and a 
poor, weak man set his hard and unforgiving temper 
against the mercies of a forgiving God. In his vexation 
the prophet asked that he might die. A city which con- 
tained one hundred and thirty thousand children, too 
young to distinguish their right hand from their left, 
must perish rather than he should seem to suffer some 
slight personal discredit. But God rebuked His servant 
and taught him how unlovely and inhuman were the 
feelings into which self-love had betrayed his heart. 

Is there not a certain resemblance between the case of 
Jonah and the leaders in this agitation? Jonah was per- 
sonally one of the best of men, for was he not a chosen 
prophet of the Lord ? The Citizens' Committee are among 
the best of men, for they have repeatedly told us so. As 
to that point they do not quote testimonials or give refer- 
ences ; they simply write out their own characters. We 
humbly accept these self estimates, and start by pointing 
out that there is the similarity of high personal character 


between the caee of Jonah and that of the Citizens' Com- 
mittee. But high character did not save Jonah from 
assuming an attitude of mind to his fellow-creatures of 
Nineveh which was harsh and inhuman. Neither are the 
members of the Citizens' Committee exempt from the like 
frailty. When Jonah did not get his own way he was 
very angry, and when certain members of the committee 
did not get their way they were very angry. Jonah in his 
wrath refused to remain in the city, saying, " I do well 
ta be angry." Dr. Moulton and Principal Graham, speak- 
ing in the name of the Citizens' Committee at the Free 
Trade Hall demonstration, declared a boycott on the Town 
Hall during Mr. Holt's mayoralty. Like Jonah, they 
withdraw from the city; like him, they do well to be 
angry. The harsh temper of Jonah received the rebuke of 
God, the harsh temper voiced by Messrs. Moulton and 
Graham has incurred the censure of the people of Man- 
chester. Shall we say "Vox populi, vox Dei "1 

The Logical Confusion. 

The transference of interest by association which has 
k just been referred to and illustrated by the cases of the 
miser and the prophet Jonah is the fruitful parent of much 
that is questionable in the action of teetotal extremists. 
Let us take one instance. A certain number of men, 
moved by a genuine horror of drunkenness, form a society 
called the United Kingdom Alliance, with the aim of 
opposing intemperance. This is their original end. But 
this organisation once formed and certain measures being 
advocated by it, devotion to the organisation and loyal 
support of its measures are held to be essential. The 
means' — fidelity to the Alliance — comes to override the 
end, the abatement of intemperance, as was evident in 
the case of Mr. Bruce's Licensing Bill of over thirty 
years ago. Under that bill of Mr. Gladstone's Govern- 
ment licenses would by this time have been reduced to 
half their present number, but the proposal was wrecked, 
and mainly through the opposition of the United Kingdom 
Alliance. The late Dr. R. Martin, of Manchester, more 


than once stated that by that action alone the Alliance 
had done more harm to the cause of true temperance than 
it had done good in other ways throughout its existence. 

How fallible are our friends was strikingly shown in 
the recent division in their ranks on the point of what 
is called " disinterested management." The advocates of 
that measure were lovers of temperance quite as much as 
were the members of the Alliance ; yet this body opposed 
the scheme because its provisions clashed with those of 
their particular nostrum. The advocates of disinterested 
management complained that by this opposition it was 
proved that fidelity to the Alliance and its measures 
weighed more with Alliance men than the abatement of 
drunkenness. Certainly both sides could not be right ; yet 
the division in opinion of the two parties did not seem to 
shake the confidence of Alliance men in their organisation. 

Allied with the psychological confusion which has been 
pretty freely illustrated, there often occurs what I may 
call the logical confusion^the inability or unwillingness to 
distinguish between the occasion and the cause, between 
the folly within a man and its external manifestations — 
between merely local association and causal connection. 
In the struggle between legislative repression and private 
folly the power of the former is limited. It is no gain 
to suppress the manifestation of human weakness if we 
thereby drive the mischief inwards and so provoke more 
disastrous forms of expression. There is no justice in say- 
ing that because the publican stands at a point where 
human nature breaks down therefore he is the cause of 
the lapse, always provided he does not seek to provoke that 
lapse. Local association as a class must not be construed 
into actual causation as a class. The causal connection can 
only be justly attributed to those individual cases where 
intemperate drinking is personally encouraged. Such men 
should be made to feel the weight of public opinion, but 
the wholesale condemnation of a class is as absurd as it 
is unjust. The depraved inclination of men, if deprived by 
external repression of one vent, is apt to find another and 
possibly worse one. When men use wild and whirling 
words about the amount of crime to be set down to the 


account of beer -drinking, they would do well to ask what 
will take the place of the beer displaced. Will the spark 
in the drunkard's throat be quenched by shutting up the 
public-house 1 Will the inner craving cease as if by magio 
to please the United Kingdom Alliance? Will local veto 
prove a veto on human imperfection? And if not, a wise 
man will look at both sides of the account and ask whether 
what takes the place of beer drinking may not prove worse 
than beer drinking itself. If intemperate men passed from 
beer to morphia, brewers would be ruined indeed, but, at 
the same time, the nation would advance a long way on 
the road to ruin. 

In all this I am not protesting against opposition to 
drunkenness (a vice which I deplore as much as any man), 
but against putting all the blame of it on one clas6, and 
that not the one that commits it, and also against quack 
remedies which mistake the symptom for the disease, and 
in their action prove worse than the disease. If the drink 
evil is the cause of nearly all the crime in England one 
would expect that Constantinople, where the drink evil 
does not exist, would be one of the most moral of cities. 
That such is not the case everybody knows. The recent 
great increase in lunacy is often .assigned to the consump- 
tion of drink as the cause. But, if drinking were the sole 
cause, or even the largest factor, we should see some sort 
of correspondence between the statistics of drinking 
and of lunacy. They would tend to vary in the same direc- 
tion, increasing or decreasing together. What is the fact? 
During the seven years in which this great increase of 
lunacy has occurred the consumption of drink has gone 
down by twenty millions a vear, in spite of an augmenting 
population. So that we have the marvellous phenomenon 
of a weakening cause producing a stronger effect. This 
k;nd of reasoning may pass muster in band of hope recita- 
tions and on Alliance platforms, but in works on logic it 
is only discussed in the chapter on fallacies. 

A doctor in lunacy recently declared that the children 
of drunkards are drunkards or lunatics or criminals. This 
in an official report ! Has this gentleman lived in a cup- 
board that he makes assertions so far from the truth 1 Is 


his statement true of the rich and titled classes ? We know 
it is not. Is it true of the middle and working classes? 
On the contrary, the revulsion of feeling which occurs in 
the mind of some children of drunkards drives them to the 
other extreme. Such random talk reminds me of a little 
anecdote. A good brother in a village prayer meeting was 
much given to expatiating on his extreme wickedness, tell- 
ing the Lord that he was a guilty worm and the chief 
of sinners. A sister, who had often chafed to hear what 
she thought his undue self -depreciation, could not contain 
herself on one occasion when the tale of sinfulness was 
being told for the hundredth time. She broke in upon 
the good man's confession of his exceeding sinfulness with 
the exclamation, " Thank God, that's a lie !" So when a 
doctor in lunacy gravely tells us that the children < f 
drunkards are drunkards or lunatics or criminals, we may 
thank Heaven that the statement is not true to fact. 

Perhaps the real explanation of this official's strange 
statement is that he meant to reverse his proposition, 
and say that drunkards, lunatics, and criminals are 
frequently the children of drunkards. This may be true, 
but it differs from his original statement by substituting 
" frequently " for an implied " always," and by turning 
the proposition right about. Just as it is false to say, 
" All Europeans are Frenchmen," but true to say ^hat 
" All Frenchmen are Europeans," so it is certainly in 
correct to say that the children of drunkards are drunkards 
or lunatics or criminals, but it may be not very far from 
the truth to assert that drunkards and lunatics ind 
oriminals are frequently the children of drunkards. If 
this conjectural emendation of the doctor's statement i- 
not the correct one, there is only one other explanation 
of it left. He must have asked one of the lunatics under 
his care to write that paragraph in his report. 

" Confusion Worse Confounded." 

What passes for argument among teetotalers is 
frequently a blend of what I have called the psychological 
confusion with the logical confusion just named. Let us 


give a specimen of their confused reasoning. They often 
argue, not explicitly, but implicitly, something like this : 

1. There is no drinking without a certain amount 

of drunkenness. 

2. Drunkenness is mischievous and immoral. 

3. Therefore the public sale of drink is wrong, and 

to be discouraged or even suppressed. 

4. And the brewer and publican follow an immoral 


5. Therefore publicans and brewers should be sub- 

jected to disabilities. 

Of these five statements the first two are true. In the 
third the false assumption is made that what contains an 
objectionable element must be condemned wholesale. 
What class or what institution would escape under this 
rule ? In the fourth sentence the blame for the immorality 
of the drunkard is transferred to publicans and brewers 
associated with it. In the fifth the blame put upon the 
class descends to every individual member of the class, 
and is held to justify disabilities at the hands of their 
Ifellow citizens. 

To show up the injustice of this reasoning, let us apply 
it to the case of preaching in places of Christian worship : 

1. In connection with all Christian preaching and 

worship there is a certain amount of formalism, 
hypocrisy, and sectarian hatred. 

2. These feelings and habits of mind are bad. 

3. Therefore public worship and preaching are wrong, 

and to be discouraged or suppressed. 

4. And ministers follow an immoral occupation. 

• r >. Therefore ministers of religion should be sub 
jected to disabilities. 

Of course this is sheer nonsense, but so is the one on 
which it is modelled. Common sense and common justice 
suggest that the proportion of hypocrisy, more or less, 
which is incidental to all churches, is due to the imperfec- 
tion of human nature, and for it ministers of religion ire 

only responsible in so far as they encourage it. Equally 
is it true that drunkenness is due to the imperfection of 
human nature, and for it publicans are only responsible 
in so far as they encourage it. 

Disinterestedness Not Sufficient. 

Teetotalers tell us that in their agitation they are per- 
fectly disinterested. We gladly admit that they have no 
mercenary aims, and that their desire is to benefit their 
kind; but good intentions do not guarantee the adoption 
of means suitable to the attainment of the desired end 
History shows that an altruistic bias may mislead nearly 
as much as a mercenary one. The self -approbation arising 
from the consciousness of disinterested motive is some- 
times carried forward, as it were, to the practical means 
employed, and held to justify them. In the words of Dick 
Dauntless in " Ruddigore" : " It must be right so long is 
your 'eart be your compass, in so fur a^ this 'ere 'eart 
of mine's a dictatin' to me like anythink." But experi- 
ence shows that emotional impulse is blind, and is apt lo 
strike out wildly. Warm hearts require cool heads to 
guide them. An impulse imperfectly rationalised may be 
the spring of mischievous action. 

A further risk of mistake arises when an organisation 
is formed to promote a certain object. Party kn^alry 
presents its demands, which may not coincide with the 
original and professed aim, while the tendency to oppose 
at all costs the persons and classes which are obnoxious to 
the favoured organisation comes in to pervert the love of 
justice and right for its own sake. The words of Sir 
Henry Thompson are worth quoting on this point : 
" Moreover an exclusive and sectarian spirit always creeps 
in sooner or later wherever an 'ism' of any kind leads 
the way, which brings in its train assertions barely sup- 
ported by faot, the equivocal use of terms, evasion — in 
short, untruthfulness unintended and unperceived by the 
well-meaning people who, having adopted the ' ism,' at 
last suffer quite unconsciously from obscurity of vision, 
and are in danger of becoming blind partisans." These 


words present a' perfect picture of the particular " ism " 
called teetotalism in its aggressive aspect. 

Their Abuse of Language. 

When in the Civil Wars the Parliamentary party styled 
themselves the " Godly " and attached to the Royalists 
the odious name of " Malignants," they endeavoured to 
beg the whole matter in dispute by taking to themselves 
an honourable name and fastening on their opponents a 
dishonourable one. In somewhat the same manner some 
total abstainers make play with the words " temperate " 
and "temperance," which they seek to appropriate to 
their own side. I say most, not all, for the Church of 
England Temperance Society, with greater breadth of 
spirit and accuracy of language, admits all who aim at 
temperance in act whether total abstainers or moderate 
drinkers. But the majority of so-called Temperance 
Societies are simply total abstinence organisations. 
The members of these bodies speak of their propaganda 
as " temperance work " and themselves as " temperance 
workers." Is this use of those phrases justified? If a 
man made no use of his eyes whatever we should scarcely 
say that he was " temperate " in the use of his eyes ; so 
a man who makes no use of drink whatever can scarcely 
be described as being " temperate " in regard to drink. 
Perhaps it will be replied that there is a proper use for 
eyes, and that, in their opinion, there is no proper use 
tor drink. Just so, but people who hold that drink is 
so thoroughly bad as not to be susceptible of any proper 
use are bound to be total abstainers from it, not 
"temperate" users of it. In the same way they think 
that theft is bad, and recommend total abstinence from 
theft. Why do they not speak of " temperance " in 
theft? Because they feel that there is a clash in the 
words. Those who, with the majority of Englishmen, 
believe that a moderate use of drink is neither a practical 
impossibility nor a contradiction in terms may legiti- 
mately speak of temperance in the use of drink, but those 
who say no man can exercise temperance in the matter 


can scarcely call their work " temperance " work. There 
are millions of Englishmen who have never lost their 
moral self-control in the matter of drink consumption. 
What are these men ? They are not total abstainers, they 
are not drunkards. They are temperate men, for the 
retention of one's moral self-control is of the very essence 
of temperance. 

When a flexible rod is twisted out of the right line, it 
may be necessary to give it a twist in the opposite direc- 
tion that it may ultimately settle in the medium position. 
In the same way teetotalism may be advisable in cases of 
drunkenness as an extreme recoil from that phase. Again, 
when good men sign the pledge in order to encourage 
drunkards to take that step, their conduct is bevond 
praise. The mischief begins when they are not content 
that their own consciences should regulate their own con 
duct. If they seek tyrannically to impose on other men 
what the latter conscientiously reject, they are persecutors 
in fact and act. whatever they may say to the contrary 
Men of conscience should make it a matter of conscience 
to respect conscience in others. 

Ax Eleventh Commandment. 

Teetotalers, taking for doctrines the commandments of 
men, make of their particular " ism " a sort of eleventh 
commandment. When this is done the man-made rule is 
sometimes found to be out of harmony with the God 
given commandments, with the result that the will of meb 
overrides to some extent the law of God. There is grave 
peril in the passionate exaltation of one particular 
tendency. Extravagant stress laid on one department of 
conduct causes other and more vital departments to suffer 
from comparative neglect. " The kingdom of God is not, 
meat and drink," says the Bible. Christian teaching 
emphasises the supreme importance of the right spirit 
within a man and the comparative unimportance of 
external matters and material observances. The militant 
teetotalers, on the contrary, lay stress on an external 
matter They glorify a mere means: they treat instru- 


mental and secondary matters as of primary importance, 
and this at the expense of more fundamental truths. In 
the time of Jesus those who thrust into the foreground 
minor matters, such as the payment of tithes on mint and 
anise and cumin, thrust into the background the weightier 
matters of the law. The history of Christianity affords 
only too many illustrations of the like mistake. We will 
give one instance. It is a fact that in the days when 
slavery prevailed in the United States it sometimes 
occurred that at one and the same church meeting resolu- 
tions were passed condemning dancing as sinful and 
approving slave-holding as right. The conscience of to- 
day, both religiousi and secular, has reversed this judg- 
ment. Our local agitators follow the example of tne 
Christian slave-holders pretty closely. They condemn 
moderate drinking and approve the class persecution of 
brewers. I believe that Manchester reverses both 

Rise and Growth op an Intolerant Spirit. 

Having adopted for themselves the practice of total 
abstinence as the appropriate weapon with which to fight 
drunkenness, teetotalers are tempted to condemn all those 
who decline to follow the same course. During one of 
my stays' at a Matlock hydro an ardent teetotaler told me, 
in the presence of some other visitors, that I was " worse 
than a drunkard." I replied : " Then I should be a better 
roan if I became a drunkard." This rather staggered him, 
and he modified his original statement into " Your example 
is worse than that of a drunkard because the sight of a 
drunkard tends to repel from drink, but your example 
would rather lead others to think it safe and right to use 
it moderately." My answer was : " I do think it right to 
drink in strict moderation, and when you assume it is not 
you take for granted the very point in dispute. As for 
the responsibility of example, a man's influence is generally 
held to tell in the direction of his own practice, not in the 
opposite direction. If on your theory the example of the 
drunkard tells towards total abstinence, surely that is an 
argument in its favour — which is absurd." Of course I 


failed to convince him, and when he had reasserted his 
opinions he took out his pipe and smoked away content- 
edly, for he was a rather heavy smoker. The next day our 
group was joined by a newcomer who was as much opposed 
to tobacco as he was to drink. The conversation of the 
previous day came up for review, and our latest arrival 
strongly backed the views of his fellow teetotaler, much 
to the latter's satisfaction. But when his pipe was pro- 
duced at the close of the argument, as it had been the 
day before, he received such a lecture from the anti- 
nicotine man as he had himself given us the day before 
on the drink question. The mischief of juvenile smoking— 
the responsibility of example — the blameworthiness of 
professed moderation — the tendency of the smoking habit 
to generate, or at least encourage, the drink habit — all 
these were enlarged upon with the usual teetotal vehemence 
and exaggeration. We others listened in amused silence 
to see our friend's guns thus turned on his own position. 
The fact is that the teetotal principle, from the nature 
of things, cannot be applied all round. 

The recent dispute between the friends of " disinterested 
management " and the supporters of the United Kingdom 
Alliance was most illuminating. Mr Arthur Sherwell, 
writing in the " Methodist Becorder " for November 8th, 
1906, says: "What is it in the temperance movement 
that destroys in so many ardent reformers the sense of 
proportion, and — I am afraid I must sorrowfully add — 
ordinary respect for accuracy of statement. I 

believe that the United Kingdom Alliance has done itself 
and its cause needless injurv by exceeding the limits of 
its own policy and constitution, and by going out of its 
way to express formal condemnation of a principle which 
until quite recently it was not unwilling to sanction 
If people before stigmatising our proposals would 
only take the trouble to read them, they would save 
themselves from a confusion which is injurious to their 
own reputations and unfair to others." He expresses his 
rrrrret that "even intelligent and sincere men indulge 
in wild statements," and says: "Do let us, as earnest 
and practical temperance reformers, put away unreason- 


ing prejudice and* unnecessary misconceptions, and face 
facts." It is evident from these words that the bitter 
intolerance of the Alliance has disgusted some teetotalers. 
"What effect the unedifying spectacle has had on the 
general public may be easily guessed. 

Mb. Lloyd-George Infected. 

The President of the Board of Trade is a very able 
man, who possesses in a high degree the art of accom- 
modating himself to his audience. Put him before a meet- 
ing of his fellow Welshmen, and he suits his address to 
their tastes and prejudices ; set him among business men 
and he will display a high capacity for business ; assign 
him the task of engineering a practical proposal through 
the House of Commons and he will win high credit by 
his power of adapting himself to the demands of the 
situation. Place the same man on the platform of the 
United Kingdom Alliance, and what will he do? How 
will he display his opinion of his audience? If the 
action of the President of the Board of Trade on the occa- 
sion of his recent visit to Manchester is any criterion, 
wejnay say that*he considered exaggerated language and 
inaccurate figures to be the intellectual food expected 
from him, for that was what he supplied to them. He 
said that " the Government must first of all put an end 
to the mischievous operations of the great recruiting 
sergeant of the unemployed army — drink — with his press- 
gang of public-houses." It is deplorable when a respon- 
sible Minister of the Crown talks such silly clap-trap. 
Mr. Lloyd-George is too clever a man not to know that 
this' Government will not, and indeed cannot, put an end 
to licensed houses. Mr. Arthur Sherwell, in the letter 
already quoted, says that Sir Wilfrid Lawson himself 
considered that a reduction of fifty per cent in the national 
drink bill was scarcely to be expected in this generation 
or the next. As for the " press-gang " phrase, it is ridicu- 
lously inappropriate, though admirably fitted to the taste 
of an Alliance audience. The pressed sailor was seized 
and carried off by external force against his will, whereas 
no man is compelled by external force to enter a public- 


house. The one was involuntary, the other is voluntary 
The one was a denial of free choice, the other a permission 
of free choice. When publicans sally forth into the street 
at the head of armed bands, carry off passers by into their 
places of business, then and there compel them to pur- 
chase and consume what drink their captors choose, then, 
and not till then, will it be possible to talk about the 
" press-gang of public-houses," without indulging in 
language which is both injuriously insulting to a respect- 
able trade and an utter perversion of fact. The essence 
of the press-gang was its interference with a man's free 
choice. If there is a press-gang in this matter it will be 
found among Mr. Lloyd-George's audience, for their fingers 
itch to force men out of public-houses, and convey them 
bodily to meetings which the religious and philanthropic 
press-gang consider more suitable for their captives. 
Doubtless they think it would be well for those who enter 
public-houses if they were carried off to a band of hope 
gathering, or a mothers' meeting, or one of those assem- 
blies we see described by their promoters as " brief and 
bright and brotherly," which the late Dr. Parker said 
might as well be styled " meek and mild and motherly." 

The President of the Board of Trade was not content 
with presenting to his Alliance audience the appropriate 
diet of language false to fact; he also fed them with 
figures false to fact. He stated that from 25 to 
75 per cent of workmen failed to present themselves at 
their places of employment on Monday morning. And 
this from the President of the Board of Trade! The next 
day he reduced the percentage to one between five and 
25 — a. remarkable fall, and suggestive of grave reflections. 
Inquiries made in Manchester and Birmingham showed 
that even this was an absurd over-statement. To name 
one particular instance : of the 607 men employed at the 
Cape Hill Brewery, Birmingham, the percentage ol 
absentees was a little under two and one-third. Among 
Mr. Lloyd-George's audience there must have been many 
business men who not only knew that that gentleman's 
figures were absurdly untrue, but whose office boys would 
have heard them with a smile of amused contempt. That 


such men should tacitly approve false figures constitutes 
a painful problem. Do they think that the end justifies 
the means, and that lies serve as a suitable foundation for 
what they consider the truth? Canon Hicks has in the 
course of this controversy spoken with contempt of " the 
moral code of his (Mr. Holt's) business." Those agitators 
who put forward false descriptions and falsified statistics 
in the promotion of a favourite cause should search their 
own consciences and bring " the moral code of their busi- 
ness " to the test of the eternal verities. 

The fortunes of any cause are to some extent in the 
hands of its advocates. Bad management may spoil 
even a good case. What is the effect produced on the 
minds of the general public when they see that the men 
who wish to reform them employ questionable means 
in the prosecution of their campaign? What can it be 
except to reflect discredit on themselves and their cause, 
and throw public sympathy on the side of the class that 
is unworthily assailed? It is strange that agitators, who 
admit that the coming licensing legislation, to be success- 
ful, must win tha approval of the general public, should 
by tactics void of principle alienate the great mass of 
unprejudiced men who are neither interested in the drink 
trade on the one hand nor violently hostile to it on the 

Festina Lente. 

The tendency of extremists is to be dissatisfied with 
the slow progress of moral evolution and to turn to what 
they call " drastic " legislation as a remedy for moral ills. 
" The mills of God grind slowly/' too slowly for the 
patience of these hustlers according-to-law. Legislation, 
especially coercive legislation, is the modern fetish. Does 
anything objectionable occur? Immediately the man in 
the street cries out : " There ought to be a law passed to 
prevent it." But the scope of legislation is limited. In 
the words of Goldsmith: — 

" How small of all that human hearts endure, 

That part which laws or kings can cause or cure ! 

Still to ourselves in every place consigned, 

Our own felicity we make or find." 


I never read the second of the above lines without 
thinking that the possibilities for mischief of unjust laws 
is much greater than the possibilities for good of just ones. 

We cannot entirely save fools from their folly by ex- 
ternal regulation. Men are not to be treated like babes. 
It is impossible to put a guard round every fire as if the 
world were a nursery with our teetotal friends as grand- 
motherly caretakers and officious dictators. An enforced 
mechanical sobriety would be dearly purchased at the 
cost of freedom. 

OrHER Teetotalisms Abandoned. 

Fifty or sixty years ago the Nonconformist churches 
taught that cards, dancing, theatres, and novels were of 
the devil. Where are those teetotalisms now? There are 
still families which, narrowly good, still cling to the old 
standards on these points, but these are a small and 
diminishing minority. The heads of Nonconformist 
families arrange whist drives and give dancing parties, 
while the career of Sir Henry Irving and the moral sup- 
port afforded to him by the Baroness Burdett-Coutts have 
helped on the tendency to remove the ban from the 
theatre. As to novels, a work by R. L. Stevenson was 
recently recited at the charge of a shilling a head in the 
church of one of those who spoke at the Free Trade Hall 
demonstration. The Rev. Silas Hocking, formerly a pro- 
minent Nonconformist minister, has found the" call to 
novel-writing more influential than his prior call to the 
ministry. So do merely conventional standards fade and 
pass. Having no root in eternal principle they cannot 

Has the passing of these four teetotalisms no lesson for 
our friends? May not the teetotal theory as to drink, 
which has waxed as the other teetotalisms have waned, be 
destined to follow them to extinction ? Like them, it may 
prove to be merely conventional and therefore merely 


Folly and Its Manifestations. 

He is a poor physician who cannot distinguish between 
a disease and its manifestations. It is of the essence of 
quackery to strike at a symptom to the neglect of the 
root-malady. If the expression of human folly in one 
form is checked too rigorously it is apt to find other and 
perhaps more objectionable outlets. Constantly increasing 
pressure is put upon public-houses, and the result is that 
drinkers organise clubs, which are much less under con- 
trol. The Chief Constable of Manchester recently men- 
tioned the case of a club which he had had raided, of which 
any female could be a member on the payment of twopence 
a week, and any man for threepence weekly. He went on 
to say : " He trusted the Government woidd at the same 
time consider the question of the clubs. He knew from 
practical experience that the clubs were chiefly the cause 
of the sin of drunkenness. Last year between twelve 
o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning 1,375 
persons were arrested for drunkenness 1 in Manchester. The 
publicans could not be blamed for that. There was no 
doubt that they gotthe drink either in the clubs or private 
bouses, and he did not think many people got drunk in 
private houses after twelve o'clock at night." 

'' Helps " That are No Help. 

When Mr. Gladstone introduced grocers'' licenses, he 
meant to help sobriety, not hinder it. His intention was 
to remove to some extent the necessity for entering a 
public-house. We all know how mischievous the Act 
proved in its operation. Only among women is drinking 
on the increase at the present time, and the growth of 
the drink habit in this section of the community is univer- 
sally admitted to be largely due to a well-intentioned Act 
passed by a great Liberal statesman who was personally 
one of the best of men. Legislation remedial in its inten- 
tion aggravated the mischief it was meant to check. If 
it lessened drinking in the public-house it increased it in 
the private house, and that among the mothers of the 


Another doubtful remedy is Sunday closing. A Glasgow 
gentleman, formerly a resident in Oldham, tells me that 
Sunday closing means in Glasgow the purchase of drink 
on Saturday night for consumption on Sunday in the home, 
and that in this consumption wives and children frequently 
take their part. They often drink till all the liquor is 
gone, with the result that on Sunday night and early 
Monday morning numerous arrests for drunkenness are 
made. As by that time the public houses have been closed 
for twenty-four hours or more, these street scenes cannot 
be laid at their door. Moreover, the practice of shebeen 
ing is resorted to as an evasion of the law, as the record 
of convictions for that offence proves. The Glasgow 
authorities have pursued the questionable policy of de- 
humanising the public-house as much as possible. Bar- 
maids are not allowed, and the provision of sitting 
accommodation is discouraged. My informant tells me 
that in practice these well-intentioned rules work out in 
sharp and frequent drinking at the public bars. Men who 
under wiser rules would slowly consume a moderate amount 
at one place of refreshment call in quick succession at 
several places for drink. Dr. Sheldon himself, on leaving 
for America, said that Glasgow was much more drunken 
than London. The experience of Sweden, as well as that 
of Wales and Scotland, seems to afford conclusive evidence 
that at any iate beyond a certain point restrictions on the 
sale of alcoholic beverages increase rather than diminish 

The report of the Chief Constable for Glasgow confirms 
this view. In 1905 no less than 14,309 persons (183 per 
thousand of the population) were apprehended for drunken- 
ness, this being an increase on both 1903 and 1904. Last 
year the number rose to 19,334 (or 24"2 of the population). 
The prevalence of shebeen inp; may he gathered from the 
facts that 97 persons were prosecuted for shebeeninc and 
hawking: excisable liquors in the streets, as compared with 
70 in 1905, and that 107 persons were apprehended for 
boinp; drunk or drinking in shebeens, as compared with 
7B in 1905. It is 1 evident, therefore, that stringent restric- 
tions which wo saw to he questionable in theory have at 


Glasgow failed in practice. A " reform " that results in 
increased drunkenness is no reform. 

Teetotalers are apt to ascribe the decline in the national 
drink bill to the increase in their number and the influ- 
ence on legislation exercised by their class. They forget 
three things. Firstly, that the practice of moderation 
started with the upper classes and after reaching the 
middle section is now affecting the working classes. 
Secondly, that in other countries where there is little 
teetotalism and no compulsory closing hour a similar im- 
piovement has taken place. In Germany, for example, 
drunkeri ness is rarer than in England, yet the legislative 
restrictions in force are less onerous than in this country 
Thirdly, the intolerant tone of the militant teetotalers has 
done much to check sobriety and estrange the public from 
their movement, so that the service they have rendered 
to temperance has been partly negatived by a certain 
amount of disservice 

The anti-brewer agitation in Manchester seems to me 
part and parcel of the political movement against Mr. 
Balfour's legislation. Mr. Robert Lewis, as passive re- 
sister^has sought to wreck that statesman's Education Act, 
and as a teetotal agitator he clamours for the reversal of 
the Licensing Act. I shall deal with Mr. Lewis as a pas- 
sive register in a subsequent chapter. With regard to the 
Licensing Act, I will quote a remark made by Mr. C. P. 
Scott, a witness who will not be suspected of Balfourian 
leanings. Speaking at a dinner given in his honour in 
Manchester, he said that the Licensing Act of 1904 con- 
tained two good features in that it brought the ante '69 
beerhouses within the purview of the justices, and also 
placed the conditions under which new licenses are granted 
in their hands. We may add to this handsome admission 
that it made possible a steady reduction of licenses' with- 
out drawing on the public purse. But because the Act 
involved the recognition of a title to compensation, it 
is odious to the Alliance and its friends. Under the old 
system, with a theoretical power to refuse all licenses, the 
humanity of the justices largely prevented the closure of 
public-houses except on grounds of misconduct in their 


management, whereas the present method allows justices 
to study the requirements of a district and close surplus 
houses without feeling that they are robbing respectable 
men of a living. " By their fruits ye shall know them." 
If the practical result of Mr. Balfour's Act is to reduce 
licenses at a fairly rapid rate, why this fanatical desire 
to reverse it? Just as passive resistance by its law-break- 
ing methods tends 1 to make all law a nullity, so this pro- 
posed reversal of legislation strikes a blow at the con- 
tinuity of legal enactment. And the marvel of marvels 
is that men like Mr. Lewis, who aim at reforming the 
country by means of laws, should show us by their passive 
resistance agitation how the laws they desire may when 
passed be brought to nought, and by their " reversal " 
policy how their favourite enactments may in their turn 
be reversed when the opposite party comes into power. 
Their policy might be summed up in the words, " How 
the friends of ' progress ' make continuous progress diffi- 
cult, if not impossible." How much their cause has suf- 
fered in the past by narrowness on the part of teetotalers 
is beginning to be seen by some of themselves. At a demon- 
stration in Derby, Mr. C. Clements, J. P., speaking as a 
teetotaler to teetotalers, said that " he looked forward to 
the time when broadness of mind would be commoner 
amongst their own ranks. He was of opinion that they 
had lost greatly in the past by being too exclusive " 
("Temperance Bella" for October, 1906). May this more 
tolerant and reasonable spirit grow and spread until it 
reaches his brethren in Manchester. 

Having now discussed the question on the ground of 
general principle, we pass to our siecond chapter — some of 
the parties involved in the controversy 




Passive Rbsistbrs. 

The close connection which exists between the passive 
resistance movement and the opposition to Mr. Hall has 
struck many observers. Mr. Charles Hughes spoke of the 
anti-brewer agitators as " Canon Hicks and the passive 
resisters." Another correspondent called them "the old 
gang of passive resisters in a new guise." Change "gang" 
into "band," and the description may stand. Take some 
of the more prominent names. To begin with, Mr. Robert 
Lewis,* who started the agitation, and accurately reflects 
its tone and spirit, is also a leading passive resister. Does 
not his name stand high on their roll of martyrs with eight 
commitments to prison, the last of the eight being for the 
lengthy period of one day? The Rev. J. E. Roberts is a 
leader in both crusades. Mr. R. D. Darbishire combines 
the same two characters. The Rev. S. F. Collier, of the 
Central Hall, has lent his countenance to both pro- 
grammes, even going so far on one occasion as to have the 
platform at the Central Hall got up in stage fashion to re- 
present a prison cell for passive resisters — an appropriately 
theatrical exposition of an essentially theatrical agitation. 
Professor Peake, who spoke at the Free Trade Hall meet- 
ing, belongs to the Primitive Methodist body, a denomina- 
tion which at its annual conferences has passed unanimous 
resolutions in favour of passive resistance. The Rev. J. 
Hirst Hollowell is a violent partisan in both causes. Dr. 
J. H. Moulton is in sympathy with passive resisters and 
also arati-brewer agitators. The energetic group of 


applauding Didsbury students, who by their presence in 
the Free Trade Hall helped to eke out a somewhat meagre 
platform, and by their action did so much to keep the 
protest meeting alive, belong to an institution in which a 
branch of the Passive Resistance League was started by 
the students very early in the movement. More instances 
might be added in illustration of the close connection 
between the two agitations, but I will only name one. 
The Rev. S. E. Keeble, who took part in the Free Trade 
Hall meeting, stated that in opposing Mr. Holt he was 
speaking for four thousand members of the Manchester 
and District Free Church Federation, of which he was 

Thb Free Church Council. 

This name brings us round to the Free Church Council 
and its association with both passive resistance and the 
present agitation. The connection is pretty obvious. 
Dr. Clifford is the leading spirit of the passive resistance 
movement, and a prominent member of the National Free 
Church Council, for the Manchester branch of which Mr. 
Keeble spoke at the Free Trade Hall meeting. The Rev. 
J. Scott Lidgett, who encouraged the anti-brewer agitation 
and advised his protesting friends to go out into the streets 
of Manchester and canvass, is an ex-president of the Free 
Church Council. In their Year Book for 1906 I find 
among the members of the General Committee of that 
body such familiar names as the Revs. J S. Lidgett, S. F 
Collier, J. H. Hollowell, J. E. Roberts, and Professor 
Peake, all committed to both agitations. As the Council 
by its political and civic activities figures so largely before 
the public eye it is important to examine its credentials. 

Whom Dobs the Free Church Council Represent? 

The Council frequently acts as if it represented all the 
Free Churches outside the Anglican and Roman com- 
munions, and Dr. Clifford, with characteristic exaggera- 
tion, has in so many words claimed for it that position. 
The very title, "Evangelical Free Churches," might have 
taught him that his society only professes to represent a 


section of the Free Churches. As a matter of fact, 
Unitarians are excluded from association. The question 
arises : Does the Council represent the other non-estab- 
lished Churches? If any one man has the right by high 
position, devoted service, and ripe wisdom to speak on 
such a matter, so far as the Congregational body is con- 
cerned, that man is Dr. Guinness Rogers. Writing to the 
Times, January 11th, 1907, Dr. Rogers said: "The Free 
Church Federation represents its own members, but not 
any of our great bodies, such as the Wesleyan Conference 
or the Congregational Union." The statement passed 
unchallenged. But if the Council has no warrant for 
superseding the representative authority of the Congrega- 
tional Union, neither has it any warrant for elbowing out 
of its corporate position the Baptist Union. As a matter 
of fact, the Free Church Council came into being not by 
the action of representatives duly appointed by the con- 
stituted authorities of the various Free Churches, but by 
the coming together of groups of individual members of 
those Churches, who assume to represent the Churches 
of which they are individual items. Out of these groups 
the National Council is ultimately formed, which pretends 
to speak not for the groups to which it owes its existence, 
but for the whole of the Churches in which these groups 
are found. A somewhat similar performance has been 
witnessed in Manchester quite recently. A number of 
individual citizens met together for purposes of agitation 
and appointed a committee to carry out their will. This 
body met at the Central Hall, dubbed itself the Citizens' 
Committee, and attempted to dictate to the members of 
the City Council — the true Citizens' Committee. The 
consitution of the Free Church Council and the action of 
the Citizens' Committee equally rest on a negation of the 
true principles of representation. It is an oligarchy 
masquerading as democracy. 

But let us probe still further the claim put forward by 
Dr. Clifford, when, in the Times of December 11th, 1*06, 
he spoke of the National Free Church Council " represent- 
ing the whole of the Free Churches." With regard to 
the largest non-established religious body in England — 


the Wesleyan Methodist Church— it is easy to prove that 
the assumed representative character of the Free Church" 
Council does not hold, for in the Methodist Recorder 
(March 7th, 1907) the Rev. Samuel Chadwick complained 
that the attitude of his fellow Wesleyans " has on the whole 
been one of aloofness, if not positive distrust." He admits 
that the Free Church Council is " believed by many to be 
a political caucus, fighting under an ecclesiastical 
banner," and finally asks if it is " wise, just, or Christian 
for Wesleyan Methodists to stand aloof." The Methodist 
Recorder, in reply, said : " Is it not desirable that there 
should still be a Nonconformist Communion in which a 
Conservative politician may conveniently worship 1 Would 
it be wise to drive all Wesleyan Conservative politicians 
into the Church of England? " Here, then, we have clear 
proof that members of the largest Free Church in the 
country on the whole stand aloof. Let us consider a few 
of the strange results to which we are committed if we 
allow that the Free Church Council represents the whole 
of the Free Churches. If the Free Church Council arrives 
at any decision that 'decision represents the will of each 
of the component Churches. If, for example, the Free 
Church Council decided for secular education (and the 
President declared that if the Government proposed such 
a measure, a vote in opposition could probably not be 
carried in the Council), while the Wesleyans are, as a 
matter of fact, strongly in favour of religious education, 
we should have the remarkable spectacle of the Wesleyan 
body being at once for and against secular education. 

Take another case, which would be possible, and, indeed, 
might easily arise in practice. A deputation, consisting 
of Free Churchmen, is being received by a Minister of 
the Crown. The Chairman of the Congregational Union 
speaks for the Congregationalisms, the Chairman of the 
Baptist Union for the Baptists, the President of the 
Wesleyan Conference for the Wesleyan MethodisTs, and the 
President of the Primitive Methodist Conference for the 
Primitive Methodists. Then the President of the Free 
Church Council rises to express the views of the religious 
bodies he represents — the whole of the Free Churches! 


Would he dare to say explicitly what his Council claims 
implicitly, and tell the Cabinet Minister that the presence 
of the previous speakers was quite unnecessary, that his 
commission superseded theirs, because he represented the 
whole of which they only represented the fractions? We 
have seen that Dr. Clifford speaks of the, National Council 
as " representing the whole of the Free Churches," but 
even he would scarcely have , the courage to make this 
practical deduction from his doctrine. General state- 
ments that will not stand the test of practical application 
stand condemned. 

The more the representative character of the Free 
Church Council is investigated the less satisfactory is it 
seen to be. First they take a part of the Free Churches 
as organised bodies, next a part of the membership of 
these bodies. This part of a part is then held to be the 
whole. There is no proper foundation to their scheme of 
representation. The Free Church Council is like a figure 
with head of brass but feet of clay. 

Against the claim of Dr. Clifford that the Free Church 
Council represents '„' the whole of the Free Churches," 
let me set the words of a local Free Churchman, Mr. 
John Broxap, who, in a letter to the Manchester 
Guardian, said that " it has never claimed to be 
representative of all Nonconformists." Mr. Broxap 
has not followed the utterances of his leaders on 
the Free Church National Council. The paragraph of 
Mr. Broxap's letter from which I have quoted is worth 
giving in full. It confirms, in language of admirable 
clearness, my present argument. Speaking of the Free 
Church Council, he says : " I wish to explain that it is a 
voluntary association of the members of certain Noncon- 
formist communities, amongst which are the various 
Methodist bodies, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presby- 
terians, Bible Christians, and others not named. It has 
never claimed to be representative of all Nonconformists, 
nor does it include all the members of the various churches 
included in it, nor has it claimed to have any official 
sanction from the authorities of these churches. It is, 
as already stated, a voluntary association of individual 


members who come together for mutual action and 

The time I have spent on the question of the repre- 
sentative character of the Free Church Council will not 
be lost if the result is a juster estimate of the exaggerated 
claims that have been made for it in the past. A body 
which takes action in local and national affairs by virtue 
of its supposed representative character must submit to 
have its credentials tested. Some light is thrown on the 
point by the case of the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett. That 
minister was a year or two ago unanimously elected 
President of the Free Church Council. To be so chosen 
as the head of a body " which represents the whole of the 
Free Churches " might well be deemed the summit of a 
minister's ambition. As the whole is more than its part, 
as the greater surpasses the less, one would scarcely expect 
that the quondam occupant of so giddy a height would 
condescend to stand as a candidate for an inferior post — 
the headship of merely one of the constituent churches 
over which in their collective capacity he had previously 
ruled. Yet last year the same gentleman was chosen Presi- 
dent-designate of the Wesleyan Conference by probably 
one of the narrowest majorities on record. He only polled 
seven votes more than the 'second name on the list, and 
had to his credit less than half the total number of votes 
cast in the election. That Mr. Lidgett should accept 
what, on Dr. Clifford's theory, is the minor post, shows 
that he does not believe in that theory sufficiently to let 
it determine his practice ; while the fact that he was 
unanimously elected to the presumably higher position, 
but only scraped into the other by a majority suggestive 
of the second ballot, proves that the mind of the Wesleyan 
Conference is by no means in accord with that of the Free 
Church Council. 

These facts are, of course, familiar to Dr. Clifford, yet 
in face of them he maintains that the Free Church 
Council represents "the whole of the Free Churches." 
Euclid lays it down as an axiom that the whole is greater 
than its part, but in this case Dr. Clifford would have us 
believe that the part is equal to the whole. But the very 


name of part implies that there is another portion or part 
which, together with the first part, constitutes the whole. 
The question arises, Of these two parts of the Free 
Churches which is it that is equal to the whole? The 
answer obviously is that the part of which Dr. Clifford 
is a part is not a part, but the whole. In the matter of 
representation the Free Churchmen inside the Free Church 
Council perform on their brethren outside an operation 
similar to that of Pharaoh's seven lean kine on the seven 
fat ones. Perhaps when the former ate up the latter they 
might in a sense be said to represent externally that of 
which they had disposed internally, but Dr. Clifford's 
mode of procedure is to ignore as Free Churchmen those 
Nonconformists whose misfortune it is to stand outside 
the Free Church Council. 

It is evident therefore that the claim of the Free Church 
Council to speak for the whole of the Free Churches is 
not in harmony with facts;. Such a claim should never 
have been made by men who knew it to be unfounded. 
That men of " conscience " should sail under false colours 
suggests reflections #s to the quality of the conscience. 

The Free Church Council has a Political Side. 

It is the glory of the Church of England that when you 
say " Churchman " you do not necessarily say either 
Liberal or Conservative. The same formerly held good of 
Wesleyan Methodists, and to a less extent applies to-day. 
But when you say " Baptist " or " Congregationalist " or 
" Primitive Methodist " you may usually add " Liberal." 
These Churches are almost narrowed to the bounds of one 
political party. They take their religion and their 
politics in one and the same parcel. Now, it is from the 
three religious bodies just named that the active spirits 
of the Free Church Council are drawn, as, for example, 
the Baptist Dr. Clifford, the Congregationalist Rev. J. H. 
Hollowell, and the Primitive Methodist Rev. A. T. Guttery. 
That portion of the Wesleyan Methodists who have joined 
the Council are on the whole strongly Liberal in politics. 
We may name as a specimen the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, 
who published a leading article in the Methodist Times, 


headed " Christianity and Liberalism," the gist of which 
was that Liberalism was Christianity in the political 
sphere. The same paper published a leader on the London 
County Council election in March last, headed " Loot v. 
Love." The side represented by "Love" was, of course, 
the Rev. J. S. Lidgett's friends, the Liberals ; the party 
of public plunder was those wicked Municipal Reformers 
who differed from him. 

The Free Church Council mainly consists of Congrega- 

tionalists, Liberals almost to a man, led by such men as 

the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, and the Rev. Silvester 

Home — Baptists, also exclusively Liberal, under the 

leadership of Dr. Clifford — 'Primitive Methodists, Liberal 

through and through, with Professor Peake and the Rev 

A. T. Guttery to the front — combined with a sprinkling of 

Wesleyans dominated by a Liberal M.P., in the person of 

Mr. Perks, and the Rev. J. S. Lidgett, editor of a Wes- 

leyan paper, which treats Liberalism as the political side 

of Christianity. What wonder if such men, even though 

coming together in the first instance mainly from a desire 

for united religious action, should be drawn into political 

courses by the sense of their common Liberalism? Such, 

in fact, was the result. Their similarity of view on 

Parliamentary questions worked out into political 

co-operation in one direction and in favour of one party — ■ 

the Liberal party. Those who are conversant with the 

facts of the case will need no proof of this statement, but 

for the sake of any who have not closely followed the 

political action of the Free Church Council, I will adduce 

a little illustrative evidence drawn from the Free Church 

Year Book for 1906. We are told (p. 184) that so far 

back as 1903 "the National Council deemed it necessary 

to open an election fund to provide the sinews of war for 

the conflict." Mr. Geo. Cadbury and others are named as 

"prominent helpers" of the election fund. A " Free Church 

Manifesto " was issued prior to the General Election, and 

an " Election Campaign " was arranged. This included a 

"motor campaign," in which the Rev. F B. Meyer and a 

colleague took the western counties and Kent, Dr. Clifford 

and another made a tour of the eastern counties, whilst 


the Rev. Silvester Home toured through the South-west 
Midlands. In the report from Manchester, forwarded by 
the Rev. J. Kirk Maconachie, similar partisan action is 
reported (p. 196). Millions of leaflets were distributed, 
all pointing in one direction politically, and some of them 
marked by a decided anti-Anglican bias. Here are a few 
of the titles— "Mr. Balfour's Illusions." "The Clerical 
Cuckoo," " Why Free Churchmen are against the Govern- 
ment," "The Bishop of London's Great Hoax," etc. 
Enough has been said to show the close connection which 
exists between the passive resistance movement, the anti- 
brewer agitation, the Free Church Council, and Liberal 
politics. It is true that Dr. Moulton has denied that the 
present agitation has anything to do with politics, but 
the very next letter to his own, in the correspondence 
columns of the Guardian, was an appeal from the Rev. J. 
H. Hughes to Welshmen to support the agitation in order 
to help Mr. Lloyd George and the present Government in 
view of the coming Licensing legislation. Alderman Holt 
was to be deprived of a portion of his civic rights, 
the will of the Manchester City Council was to be flouted, 
and„the course of municipal government deranged in order 
to facilitate the progress of a political measure. So narrow 
and partisan were the aims of the Citizens' Committee. 

Two Persecuting Movements. 

What is the fundamental similarity between the passive 
resistance and the anti-brewer movements which caused 
them to be so frequently combined in the same person? 
What impels Mr. Robert Lewis, for example, to be a 
leader in both agitations ! The answer is, I think, that 
each movement is a product and expression of the persecu- 
ting spirit. In the one case it leads to the denial of fair 
treatment to a brewer from a feeling of trade hostility, 
in the other it leads to the denial of fair treatment to 
denominationalists in education from a feeling of religious 
hostility. In each case the principal leaders are members 
of the " Free " Churches 1 , who never weary themselves but 
often weary others by telling the world of the struggles 
of their fathers in the cause of liberty. I have shown 


that in the Commonwealth period, when the spiritual 
ancestors of modern Free Churchmen enjoyed an ascen- 
dancy, maintained at the point of the sword, they could 
and did persecute with the best, even prohibiting the use 
of the Prayer Book in private families. When their 
militarist supremacy disappeared, and they passed from 
agents to victims of persecution, there was no special 
merit in struggling for freedom — the freedom they had 
denied to others in the days of their power. "Your 
ancestors persecuted mine," says the modern Dissenter to 
the modern Churchman. The Churchman might (but 
seldom does) retort, " And yours persecuted mine." The 
magnanimous silence of Churchmen as to their sufferings 
for their religion, and the diligent publication by Dis- 
senters of theirs, produces an entirely false impression 
on the public mind, which is fed on half truths — ever the 
worst of lies. The suppression of one feature and the 
exaggeration of another results in a caricature, not a true 
likeness. The Nonconformist treatment of history does 
not reflect credit on the Nonconformist conscience. It is 
too partial and selective to be true. Hence it becomes 
possible for men like Mr. W. T. Stead to declare on the 
platform of the Free Church National Council that the 
Church of England "had not a glimmer of an idea of its 
duties to the nation." Shame on the man who could 
utter so vile a slander, and shame too on the Free Church 
Council who gave it their endorsement by publishing the 
words in the official record of their proceedings. 

But this fling was not enough for Mr. Stead. After 
bad history came, appropriately enough, bad manners. 
The official record of the Free Church Council reports his 
next sentence in these words : " The Bishop of Birmingham 
had lost a great opportunity when he omitted to invite 
the National Council to the Cathedral for a great ' Te 
Deum.'" Words like these, in which silliness and bitter- 
ness struggle for the mastery, reflect discredit only on 
the speaker and his friends. The Church of England is 
not merely expected when smitten on one cheek to offer 
the other also, but to lend its Cathedral for a " Te Deum " 
in honour of the smiters. 


The Free Church. Council did not know what Mr. Stead 
was about to say, but they incurred full responsibility for 
his utterances by publishing them in the official record. 
If their platform speakers are not confined to the ranks 
of gentlemen they might at least employ one in editing 
their Year Book for the press. If the secretary, the Rev. 
Thomas Law, is the actual editor, one reads with a smile 
the estimate of the Rev. C. F. Aked, who is reported as 
saying, " God was very good to give them Mr. Law, and 
he desired to say that they loved him and were proud of 
him." This touch of combined patronage of the Almighty 
and of Mr. Law is quite in the Aked vein. 

I have dwelt on this incident because it illustrates two 
forms of persecution to which the Church of England is 
much exposed to-day — the persecution arising from per- 
verted history, and the persecution of slanderous speech. 
For, after all, the point for the men of to-day is not what 
the spiritual ancestors of Churchmen did to the forefathers 
of Dissenters ages ago or vice versa. What each party 
should ask itself is, Do I cherish that hard, unchristian 
temper of which persecution in some form or other is the 
inevitable outconfe? It seems to me that while the Church 
of England has largely learned the lesson of charity and 
toleration, many modern Dissenters linger in the persecut- 
ing stage of evolution. 

Passive Resistance a Persecuting Force. 

It may be worth while to dwell a little on the proofs 
of the assertion that passive resistance is a persecuting 
force. Take first a few utterances of passive registers. 

1. A lady resister compared the position in which she 
wag placed in having to choose between payment and non- 
payment of the Education rate to that of the martyr- 
maiden in the famous picture, " Diana or Christ." Her 
soul, she said, was in peril. Even assuming (what, 
in view of their own special contributions, is not 
admitted by the other side to be the fact) that the pay- 
ment demanded would be spent in propagating a religion 
somewhat different from her own, does it show a Christian 
spirit to liken the religious teaching of fellow-Christians 
to the idolatrous worship of a heathen goddess? 


2. At the foundation-stone laying of a new Wesleyan 
Chapel in Kotherham, the Rev. N. Fysh, a leading passive 
resister, who had been invited as a brother Nonconfor- 
mist minister to be present, on being called upon to pray, 
uttered, among other petitions, the following : '' Lord, 
grind the High Church party to powder." 

3. A Mr. Luke, who one© figured largely in Free Church 
featherings, and who was referred to as a typical passive 
resister by Dr. Clifford, in his speech at the passive 
resistance meeting in Manchester, said when in prison 
that he had " skinned " his opponents when he had been 
liberated before, and that when he left prison that time 
he would '' skin them again." He added that the magis- 
trates had given him a longer sentence than was usual, 
because he had objected to children being beaten for refus- 
ing to learn the Church Catechism. Doubting his ability 
to read the minds of the magistrates, I wrote for infor- 
mation to the place indicated. I was told, in reply, that 
the true facts would be laid before the public, and shortly 
afterwards the school correspondent stated in the columns 
of the Christian World that no children had been beaten, 
and gave the full history of the case. No reply was made 
to this letter by Mr. Luke or anyone else, but the " skin- 
ning" gentleman ceased to figure on the martyr roll of 
the passive resisters. It did not tend to raise my opinion 
of Dr. Clifford's candour to hear him read all Mr. Luke's 
outburst except the " skinning " sentences. Those 
unchristian words should have altogether prevented a 
Christian minister from using his testimony. Is no stick 
too dirty when beating the Church of England is the 
business in hand? Do not Nonconformist methods of 
controversy come within the purview of the Nonconformist 
Conscience I 

i. Perhaps it will be said that these are individual 
utterances. Unfortunately, they reproduce only too 
accurately the passive resistance spirit. Let us, however, 
give an extract from an article in a representative paper, 
the British Congregationalist. In its issue for June 20th, 
1907, appears an article, signed William Pierce, in which 
the writer gives his "meditation in Northampton Gaol." 


After saying that he goes ''with clenched teeth" to his 
penalty, and spea'king of the Church of England as the 
Hagarene Church, he proceeds to say that the Archbishop 
of Canterbury " wants x millions for his own Hagarene 
Schools " and " his own Hagarene Colleges." Falling foul 
of the Liberal party, who are accused by him of using 
passive resisters in their political game, he says : " Here 
we be penned up in bishops' prisons like milch kine, to 
supply the fighting energy to the mercenary hosts who 
fight the progressive battle, but have themselves no 
conscience in the matter." This precious article, so full 
of unconscious self-revelation, winds: up with a hint of 
personal violence to the bishops. Here are the words : 
"I wonder if there would be much satisfaction to a 
prisoner, lately discharged, to stand at the barricade and 
shoot at a batch of retreating bishops. I am afraid I 
have never given my ' old Adam ' a chance of using lethal 
weapons, scarce even to know the difference between one 
end of a gun and the other. But if the fury of a demo- 
cratic uprising came upon us, I would not trust my ' old 
Adam ' with a sword if a gaitered bishop were standing 
by. The old o»e would surely cut his ear off." 

*If Mr. Pierce is a fair specimen of the modern Noncon- 
formist he represents a sad falling off since the time of 
John Bunyan. He did not attain a fabricated martyrdom 
by passing down the shady lane of '' No effects " towards 
a few days' residence in a prison, which was at once the 
gaol of his body and the goal of his mind. Though he 
probably spent more days in prison than all our modern 
passive resisters put together, his simple soul was too full 
of Christian charity to harbour thoughts of pride and hate. 
Lying down in his prison at Bedford he saw visions and 
dreamed dreams far different from those of William Pierce 
in Northampton Gaol. 

5. Dr. Robertson Nicoll, editor of the British Weekly, 
is rightly regarded as one of the ablest and most influential 
leaders in the passive resistance movement. Does Lord 
Loreburn, the Chancellor of England, displease Dr. Nicoll 
by creating new Liberal magistrates at too slow 
a rate? He cannot protest with decency, but becomes 


personal and offensive. He contrasts the " Bob " 
Reid of former days and the Lord Loreburn of 
to-day, suggests tha,t having attained position by 
professing certain principles he is now no longer 
true to them, and compares him to Dr. Jekyll and Mr 
Hyde in Stevenson's well-known novel. In one instance 
the British Weekly speaks of " the home counties, 
which Lord Loreburn is quietly handing away to the enemy 
as fast as he can." The article concludes with the fol- 
lowing : " Liberalism at the present time has no more 
active, deadly, and powerful enemy than Lord Chancellor 
Loreburn, who climbed to his present position on the 
shoulders of Radicals." Bad goes before, but worse 
remains behind. Dr. Nicoll attacks Lord Loreburn because 
when sitting in his judicial capacity he gave in the West 
Riding appeal case a decision unacceptable to Dr. Nicoll 
and his friends in the West Riding. This man of conscience 
appears in his true light as a would-be forcer of conscience, 
one who, in order to secure a partisan triumph, would 
fain poison the fountains of justice and corrupt the highest 
justiciary in the realm. To attain his ends judges must 
break their solemn oaths and turn the " Courts of Justice " 
into hallsi of injustice. No wonder that passive resisters 
have an uneasy feeling that the leaders of their cause 
have in their blindness brought them to the edge of the 
ditch. Let me return upon Dr. Nicoll the advice given 
by him to the Church Times in December last, when he 
suggested repentance in tears and ashes as a most appro- 
priate act. 

Dr. Leach as a Specimen. 
The character of passive resistance may be read in the 
character of passive resisters. Mr. Birrell has told us 
that the theological bacillus bred in chapels is quite as 
noxious as that bred in churches. This admission is all 
the more to be noted because Nonconformists in general 
have never developed that fine capacity for belittling their 
own church to which a few Anglican dignitaries have 

. DO 

attained. Let us then try the art of moral vivisection on 
some leading passive resisters in order that we may, if 
possible, isolate the passive resistance bacillus. 


Dr. Leach, shortly before leaving Manchester, threw a 
flood of light on his own idea of free discussion of the 
education question. He magnanimously invited any group 
of opponents to provide for him a room and an audience, 
and he would undertake to enlighten them on certain 
specified points in dispute. Mr. T. C. Horsfall offered 
to provide room and audience for Dr. Leach on condition 
that he was allowed to follow the doctor and present his 
side of the argument. To this Dr. Leach would not agree. 
This Free Churchman's idea of free discussion was that 
only one side should be heard, and that, of course, his 
own. The party, whose guest he was, must listen in meek 
silence to the lecture of their visitor, and not presume to 
express their own views on their own premises. Suppose 
an Anglican clergyman had offered to enlighten a group 
of Dr. Leach's friends in Dr. Leach's schoolroom on con- 
dition that the Free Churchmen he addressed were virtually 
gagged, one can imagine the terms, of abuse with which 
so unreasonable and one-sided a proposal would have been 

The incident in itself is trivial in the extreme; it is 
merely a straw Hying in the wind. But though the flight 
of a straw is a small thing in itself, yet it may serve to 
indicate the quarter from which the wind blows. In the 
same way the above incident, however trifling it may 
seem, gathers importance if it indicates that the prevail- 
ing wind in Dr. Leach's spirit is from the quarter of 
intolerance. For intolerance it is when a man will not 
tolerate a reply to his arguments from those who have 
listened on their own, ground to his presentation of his 
own case. 

Just before leaving Manchester Dr. Leach made a par- 
ticularly cantankerous speech when appearing before the 
Court as a passive resister. The trustees of his Church 
and schools let their Sunday School premises to the Man- 
chester Education Authority for use as a Board day school 
at a rent which is, of course, paid out of the rates. The 
trustees of denominational schools give the use of their 
school buildings to the public free of charge. The man 
whose co-religionists charge a rent to the rates holds, 


strangely enough, that the people who do not make a 
charge are taking advantage of him for the maintenance 
of the teaching given in their schools. Denominationalists 
charge no rent for their schools, and yet pay their full 
education rate. Dr. Leach charges rent, and declines to 
pay his full education rate. When pastor of a church the 
trustees of which have received over two thousand 
pounds from the public rates, he haggles over a miserable 
shilling or two in the Court, and would have us believe 
that his small contribution goes towards the teaching of 
denominational doctrine. 

Dr. Massie. 

The way in which a passive resister's conscience allows 
him to act on other questions sometimes throws an 
illuminating sidelight on passive resistance itself and the 
spirit from which his action springs. This is notably the 
fact in the case of Dr. John Massie. If there is a promise 
that should be made with deliberation and redeemed with 
fidelity it is a promise made by candidates for Parliament. 
Yet Dr. Massie, in a letter to the Times, spoke of such 
promises as being made "lightly and casually," as if that 
were quite the normal way of giving what ought to be a 
solemn and deliberate pledge. Not much trace of a super- 
sensitive conscience is visible in such language. Some of 
Dr. Massie's friends were like-minded with himself, for 
they called keeping their word " a mere pedantic regard 
for theoretic consistency," and stated that "though they 
were pledged they were not bound to give effect to their 
undertaking at an inopport\ine moment." 

In connection with the admission of women to member- 
ship of the Executive of the National Liberal Federation, 
Dr. Massie was guilty of what the ifanrhexter Guardian 
called a "thoroughly illiberal" action. It had been the 
custom to leave the admission of women to the Council an 
open question : at any rate, they were not expressly 
excluded until Dr. Massie moved and succeeded in carry- 
ing a resolution to that effect. When the Liberal ladies 
and their friends "conscientiously" protested Dr. Massie 
forgot his passive resistance theories, and spoke of physical 


force as the last word in the question. In a thoroughly 
characteristic phrase he remarked that " it would be time 
enough to elect women on the Council of the Federation 
when they bad votes." Obviously the passive resistor's 
conscience may contain a large element of cynicism. When 
women had obtained the vote, and with it political power, 
Dr. Massie would be quite willing to utilise them for party 
purposes, but in the meantime their conscientious efforts 
to attain sexual equality would receive no aid from this 
conscientious friend of equality. In the words of the 
Manchester Guardian : " Hitherto there has been no actual 
disability; he (Dr. Massie) has inflicted one. As there 
was no disability, there was no slight ; he has inflicted 

Mr. Hollowell protested in the Manchester Guardian 
that passive resisters '"'have nothing more to do with Dr. 
Massie's motion than they have to do with the speeches of 
M. Jaures in the French Chamber," and suggested that 
it would be equally fair to judge passive resistance by 
"his views of the probable duration of the solar system." 
I leave it for lay readers to say whether the connection 
of Dr. Massie's action with passive resistance is quite so 
remote as Mr. Hollowell wo\ild have us believe. A 
religious political leader, who is guilty of "thoroughly 
illiberal " action, in one department shows that he is 
actuated to some extent by the spirit of intolerance, and 
it is fair to ask whether his activities in other spheres 
may not be prompted by this same spirit. 

At the autumnal meeting of the Congregational Union 
in Blackpool in 1907, Dr. Massie spoke of himself as 
favouring " the secular solution " of the day school religious 
question. He said that there was " the secular thorough " 
on the one hand, and "the denominational thorough" on 
the other. But, said Dr. Massie, if Mr. Balfour could 
drive them to the advocacy of purely secular education 
he would sweep the country at the next election. Hence 
this man of conscience puts his conscientious preference 
for secular education in his pocket, and deliberately pro- 
ceeds to make the religious education of six millions of 
English children a mere pawn in his party game. 


Conscience and conviction give way to policy and tactics. 
Between " the secular thorough. " and " the denominational 
thorough " Dr. Massie, driven by sectarian exigency, pro- 
ceeds to discover what he oddly enough calls " the Cowper- 
Temple thorough." What plain men would call a com- 
promise he dubs "thorough." After the perversion of 
principle the perversion of language. And Dr. Massie 
would contravene the fundamental principle of passive 
resistance by forcing his compromising " thorough " on 
millions who conscientiously reject it. 

At the spring meeting of the Congregational Union in 
1907 some discussion arose about the inconsistency of 
their receiving rate aid towards their own denominational 
secondary schools whilst protesting against rate aid to 
denominational elementary schools. But it is one thing 
for Congregationalists to state principles and lay down 
rules to the detriment of alien churches, and quite another 
thing to apply their own rules to their own case. Feeling 
probably that inconvenient adherence to principle was a 
matter which might very well wait, the discussion of the 
subject was postponed to the autumnal session of the Union. 
Was this implied pledge honourably redeemed? Scarcely, 
for the subject was relegated to the bottom of the pro- 
pramme as if consistency on a vital principle were a com- 
paratively trifling matter, and was then treated not by 
the Union but in the form of a "Conference." Some 
speakers, Mr. Shepheard, of the London County Council, 
among them, were in favour of continuing to receive the 
grants for their secondary schools, but Mr. Hollowell told 
them that to do so would be " giving away their case " in 
elementary education. Thereupon some declaration was 
made against their acceptance, and Dr. Massie explained, 
in conclusion, that the resolution did not bind the Union. 
Thus the discussion by the Union, which had been dis- 
tinctly promised six months before, was evndeil, while 
Dr. Massie's closing words seem to suggest that Congre- 
gationalists do not owe to the opinion of a mere 

conference" that respect which would be due to the 
decision of the Congregational Union. All this suggests 
a. conscience in a somewhat rudimentary stage of 

■ r 


Rev J. Hirst Hollowell 

When Mr. G. K. Chesterton, in his brilliant letters on 
the Mayoralty question, exposed the two classes of 
intolerant persons into which the opponents of Mr. Holt 
may be divided, he playfully dubbed one class the Tories 
and the other the Moslems. I for one was not surprised 
when he instanced the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell as enjoying 
the distinction of combining the two intolerances in his 
sole person. We in Manchester have had ample oppor- 
tunities of estimating his tone and spirit from the speeches 
and letters in which he has expressed his views on public 
questions. He enjoys great advantages as a propagandist. 
As an ex-Congregational minister he figures at the meet- 
ings of the Congregational Union, as a member of the 
Free Church National Council he is a prominent speaker 
at their reunions, and as paid secretary of the Northern 
Counties' Education League his letters follow one another 
in close succession in the newspaper presis. Even some 
of his own friends dub him an extremist on the education 
question. His opponents consider him a very able but 
somewhat unfair controversialist. Mr. Horsfall, in his 
"Letter to a Nonconformist," writes: — 

"The Northern Counties' Education League, which has 
a large number of members, including many of the best- 
known Nonconformist ministers in this part of England, 
several years ago appointed the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell 
to be its paid secretary. Mr. Hollowell has ever since his 
appointment made unjustifiable charges against the 
managers of denominational schools, especially against 
clergymen of the Church of England. Whilst acting as 
secretary of the League, he supplied a quantity of detail 
to a charge made by a Nonconformist minister against a 
clergyman of causing a child to be sent from the top to 
the bottom of a class in a Church of England school for 
refusing to become a member of the Church choir — a 
charge which was afterwards admitted by the minister 
who made it to be unfounded ; and at a meeting of the 
Liberation Society at Rochdale he allowed the audience 
to believe that a Roman Catholic Church at Castleton, near 


Rochdale, against which a charge of allowing alcohol to 
be raffled for was made at the meeting, belonged to the 
Church of England." 

Mr. Hollowell is difficult to please on the education 
question. Of course, Mr. Balfour's Act was anathema, but 
Mr. Birrell's bill was not much more acceptable to him. 
He belittled Mr. McKenna's proposals, and repudiated the 
suggestions of the Nonconformist members of Parliament. 
At the Midland Hotel meeting of the Northern Counties' 
Education League he spoke in my hearing of the 
"apostasy" of the Government in the matter of Mr. 
Birrell's bill, and advised them to " try the superb tactics 
of honesty " But is Mr. Hollowell entitled to lecture the 
Government on honesty? As a passive register he holds 
that no one should be compelled to contribute to the cost 
of religious teaching to which he conscientiously objects. 
Since there is no form of religious teaching which does 
not clash with one's conscientious views, the doctrine 
assumes as its necessary basis a purely secular system of 
national education. But in October last Mr. Hollowell 
explained to a wondering world when secular is not secular, 
but semi-sacred. When it suits the exigencies of his 
party " secular " education includes hymns, prayers, and 
the recognition of God. So Mr. Hollowell, on passive 
resistance principles, would compel Mr. Blatchford, who 
rejects Christianity, to pay towards the cost of the 
Christian observances included in his expanded idea of 
"secular" education. With the cry of "No tests for 
teachers " on his lips, he would require school teachers to 
conduct observances which violated the consciences of 
some of their number. For, of course, it is not the inten- 
tion of Mr Hollowell to bear out of his own pocket any 
extra proportion of the cost of the religious observances 
he favours, nor do he and his friends propose to give their 
time and personal labour in those services. It is all very 
well for denominationalists to give sites and buildings 
and money and labour as a set-off for having their own 
religious teaching whilst bearing their full share of the 
cost of schools other than their own, but Mr. Hollowell 
prefers to get his religious observances conducted by the 


public teachers *at the public expense. No wonder that 
his former associates, the pure secularists, upbraided him 
for his apostasy, and recommended him, though not in 
those words, to try the superb tactics of honesty. One 
secularist protested against this specimen of Nonconformist 
clericalism, and the President of the National Union of 
Teachers has publicly advised what he called the " Free 
Church Porcupine " to " flatten its quills." 

I have shown that in England Mr. Hollowell does not 
follow his own counsel and "try the superb tactics of 
honesty." It will be instructive to see how far the London 
Missionary Society, with which Mr. Hollowell as a 
Congregationalist is associated, carries out in India those 
principles of passive resistance which its members support 
in this country. In India the mission schools of the 
Congregational body (the London Missionary Society) 
accept grants in aid from the Indian Government. This 
public money, which is expended in favour of a mere 
fraction of the population, is almost entirely drawn from 
native and heathen sources, and is employed to subvert 
the religion of,the contributors. For the mission schools 
aje proselytising institutions; their name implies it; 
their appeal to the British public proves the fact; 
it is indeed their raison d'etre. What is more, there is 
not even a conscience clause in force. An excellent secular 
education is offered to native students on condition that 
they accept the religious instruction which is inseparably 
bound up with it. Hence it follows that Mr. Hollowell, 
who objects " conscientiously " to public money going 
towards the support of the schools of fellow Christians in 
England, in which a conscience clause is in force, thinks 
it right to take money exacted from men of totally 
different faith in order to subvert- that faith, the protec- 
tion of a conscience clause being denied. What is the 
explanation of this gross inconsistency? Does the differ- 
ence in longitude justify a difference in the moral standard ? 
It seems as if the theory of passive resistance was invented 
for temporary use in this country only, and that Mr. 
Hollowell and his brethren of the London Missionary 
Society have no intention of trying the superb tactics of 


consistency in that connection. Passive resistance is a 
stick wherewith to beat the Church of England, and must 
be strictly reserved for that purpose so far as its inventors 
can rule. But when all is said and done the general 
public are apt to look with a certain degree of suspicion 
on men who thus play fast and loose with principle. 

Mr. HollowelTs unfairness as a controversialist has 
caused him to suffer the unpleasant experience of having 
further correspondence with him in the press declined. 
Canon Nunn is, I believe, one who has refused to answer 
his letters. Those who differ most from that clergyman 
will admit that he is a man who would scorn to cast such 
a slur on an opponent, except for the gravest reasons. I 
leave the point to the judgment of the Manchester public. 
They have had ample opportunity of comparing the con- 
troversial standard of morals of both Canon Nunn and 
Mr. Hollo well. 

Mr. Hollowell exalts the conscience of the passive 
resister, but he can be very severe on consciences other 
than his own. Referring to a speech by Archbishop 
Bourne, he wrote : " This is not the first time that con- 
science has been brought in to justify a public wrong. 
All the iniquities and persecutions in connection with 
religion for the last thousand years were done in the 
name of conscience. A man may be acting from such 
conscience as he has, and yet his policy may outrage 
every principle of justice." Some of us will take leave 
to apply the truth stated in the last sentence in a quarter 
not contemplated by the writer. 

I will close my references to Mr. Hollowell with two 
examples of his controversial unfairness. Referring to 
Lord Hugh Cecil's criticism of the tendency inherent in 
what is called "simple Bible teaching," Mr. Hollowell 
represented it as opposition to the Bible. His words 
were, "with Lord Hugh Cecil's talk of the Bible as 
corrosive poison" — a sheer appeal to popular prejudice. 
In a speech as member of a deputation to a Minister of 
the Crown on the day school question, he said: "We do 
not boast about it, but we have spent twenty millions on 
Sunday Schools." The reference was a pure irrelevance, 


and could only be designed to throw dust in the eyes of 
the public. The denominationalists whom he was attack- 
ing had cared for both Sunday and day school education, 
those for whom he spoke had not. 

I submit that the points herein enumerated, converging 
as they do towards one conclusion, throw light on the spirit 
which animates Mr. Hollowell. Let those who dissent 
from the inference suggested produce as many points of 
objection against a leader on the other side. Could as 
many instances of unfairness be enumerated from the 
actions and utterances of all the leaders opposed to him? 

Dr. Clifford. 

Although Dr. John Clifford has not personally inter- 
vened in the recent agitation, the passive resistors and 
Free Church Council, whom he leads, have done so, and 
our sketch of those two groups would be incomplete with- 
out some reference to one who perhaps most fully exempli- 
fies the inner spirit of those movements. 

Dr. Clifford has been styled by a Nonconformist minister 
" the idol of Nonconformity " The phrase is couched in 
thg extravagant vein to which we are accustomed from 
that quarter. Happily the Nonconformists are not 
idolators, but the fact remains that partly by assumption 
of leadership, partly by the enthusiastic support of some, 
and the tacit acquiescence of others, Dr. Clifford has come 
to exercise an influence and authority which, though 
temporary, is, whilst it lasts, propably greater than that 
of the whole bench of those bishops at whom he is never 
tired of girding. He affords a notable example of the 
ease with which a religious democracy slides into some- 
thing approaching one-man rule, and how a cleric may 
rail at "clericalism" in an alien church whilst exempli- 
fying it in his own. It will not be lost time to throw a 
few side-lights on the character of a man who has made 
it necessary to study him, and who deserves to have 
expended on himself a little of that criticism which he so 
prodigally bestows on others. " He that is first in his 
own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and 
searcheth him " (Prov. xviii. 17). 


Dr. Clifford, in one of his speeches, claimed to represent 
" the whole of the enlightened world." His idea of repre- 
sentation seems about as hazy as that of our own Citizens' 
Committee. Just as we may ask, When and how did the 
citizens of Manchester elect the so-called Citizens' Com- 
mittee? so we may ask, When and how did the whole of 
the enlightened world choose Dr. Clifford to represent it? 
A man who at once represents " the whole of the Free 
Churches " and " the whole of the enlightened world " 
has a large constituency. What constitutes " the 
enlightened world " ? Obviously, agreement with Dr. 
Clifford. In the same way the benighted world is that 
portion which rejects the light of his wisdom. 

Perhaps it may be said that there was a vein of play- 
fulness in this claim of Dr. Clifford. I have no wish to 
press his words unduly against him. At the best it was 
an unwise utterance, displaying a defective sense of the 
responsibility of leadership ; at the worst, it was an 
untruth. No Anglican bishop could have given it utter- 
ance. But let us pass from this speech to one made in all 
seriousness in my own hearing in Manchester. Speaking 
at the passive resistance demonstration in the Town Hall, 
Dr. Clifford said that " the passive resistance movement 
was divine in its impulse, divine in its advance, and divine 
in its illimitable issues." Considering that the first 
" impulse " towards the practice of passive resistance came 
in the form of a suggestion made in the House of Commons 
by Sir George White, the statement that " passive resist- 
ance is "divine in its impulse" implies one of those 
failures to distinguish between the human and the divine 
with which Dr. Clifford has made us only too familiar. 
Considering that the " advance " of the agitation has been 
marked by misrepresentation, bitterness, and unchari- 
tableness, the statement that passive resistance is "divine 
in its advance" implies a failure to distinguish between 
celestial and terrestrial sources of inspiration. Consider- 
ing that one of the " issues " to which this agitation points 
is either the total banishment of divine things from the 
day school or the reduction of the Divine Word to a mere 
shadow of itself in the " literary, historical, and ethical " 


aspects which Dr w Clifford alone admits in that connection, 
the statement that passive resistance is " divine in its 
illimitable issues " displays an inability to distinguish 
illimitable good from illimitable evil. The task of offer- 
ing millions of English children as their spiritual food 
the dry bones of Benthamite morals garnished with a few 
Scripture scraps is one that can claim no divine commission. 

Whilst, attacking bishops and priests he exalts 
" preachers " (the class to which he himself belongs), ranking 
them with poets as the originators of new and lofty ideals. 
I doubt if passive resistance in general, or Dr. Clifford's 
leadership of it in particular, has tended to raise the 
standard of controversy to a higher level. No misgiving 
on the subject seems to afflict Dr. Clifford. He not merely 
affects the airs of a Baptist Pope, but on one occasion 
advised his hearers to " cherish healthy interest in their 
own infallibility." The wholesale erection of Free Church 
infallibilities is a piece of impolicy on Dr. Clifford's part, 
unless qualified by the necessary condition that the test 
of an infallible verdict is coincidence with his own. 

We will test Dr. Clifford's judgment by a few instances. 
A few months ago he stated that the Baptist body to which 
he belongs does not accept the Apostles' Creed. Against 
this statement let me set two facts. Two or three years 
ago, at the International meeting of Baptists, Dr Maclaren, 
of Manchester, proposed that the assembled Baptists should 
stand up and recite together the Apostles' Creed as an 
expression of their unity of belief. This was done. Again, 
some few weeks after Dr. Clifford's statement waisi made, 
Dr. Chevasse, Bishop of Liverpool, paid a friendly visit 
to the Baptist Union then meeting in that city. After 
his address, the Bishop was asked by the President to 
lead the assembly in reciting the Apostles' Creed. How 
do these facts fit in with Dr. Clifford's statement? Are 
we to believe that Dr. Maclaren and the assembled Baptists 
in London and the President and assembly in Liverpool 
are all wrong on this point and Dr. Clifford right? If, 
after fifty years' experience as a Baptist minister, he does 
not know what Baptists believe, he is scarcely likely to 
be a safe guide in matters outside his own denomination. 
But let us see. 


"God Bless France." 

With regard to French affairs, Dr. Clifford follows his 
tendency to judge men and things in the lump. M. 
Rouvier may exclaim, France is going to pieces (" La 
France se dissout." Even the Editor of the Matin may- 
head a leading article " CJa craque," and M. Chas. Benoist, 
political editor of the Revue des Deux Mondes, may deplore 
" not the anarchy of the bye-ways nor that of the bomb and 
dagger so much as that which is seen in the decomposition 
of order and the putrefaction of liberty," but in the struggle 
going on in France Dr. Clifford sees nothing but a justi- 
fiable attack by the French Government on the hated 
priest. " Clericalism is the enemy," he cries after 
Gambetta, and it is clericalism, not Christianity, which, 
according to the Baptist cleric, is being attacked. So he 
publicly extols; the work of men who reject worship as a 
folly and prayer as a weakness, and gives them his benedic- 
tion in the phrase, "God bless France." Let me quote 
the words of M. Briand, " Minister of Public Worship," 
in order to see what sort of work it is which a Christian 
minister blesses. "It is time to get rid of the Christian 
idea. We have hunted Jesus Christ out of the army, 
the navy, the schools, insane and orphan asylums, and 
law courts, and now we must hunt Him out of the State 
altogether." Those who consider with Dr. Clifford that 
all this is mere antagonism to " clericalism " should study 
the action of the same " Separation Law " in the French 
colony of Madagascar, where his brethren of the Congre- 
gational body have done so much admirable work. I 
quote from the Christum World of October 24th, 1907 : 
'' The Madagascar missionary, Rev. T Rowlands, spoke 
with a tone of natural despondency. ' Madagascar ' is 
written deep on the hearts of the London Missionary 
Society. It is a field that has been watered by the blood 
of martyrs. The French occupation, however, was the 
beginning of the end so far as the London Missionary 
Society is concerned. As Mr. Rowlands explained, the 
Society's staff has diminished almost to vanishing point." 
Either Dr. Clifford gave his benediction to the French 


Government in. ignorance of these -well-known facts or 
■with the knowledge of them. In the former case, what 
shall we say of his intellectual qualifications for leader- 
ship ; in the latter, how shall we pronounce on his moral 
title to that position? 

A few months after Dr. Clifford's speech a further step 
in the path of persecution was taken by the Governor of 
Madagascar. By a single edict he ordered that no day 
schools should be held in premises used at any time for 
public worship, thus closing at one stroke 3,000 mission 
day-schools. Of these many were Protestant institutions, 
among them being not a few schools of the London 
Missionary (Society. 

The Roman Catholic missionaries in Madagascar, taught 
by the sufferings of their French brethren over which Dr. 
Clifford lejoiced, submitted quietly to the Governor's edict, 
but the Protestant missionaries attempted to influence the 
French Senat-e in their favour through the representations 
of M. Pressense. Upon this the Governor sent a leading 
article, which was inserted in the Matin newspaper. The 
heading was " Protestantism is the Enemy," and in the 
course of the % article M. Augagneur accused the Protestant 
* missionaries of being the enemies of the State. When the 
Governor of Madagascar cries " Protestantism is the 
enemy" will Dr. Clifford say " Amen," and bless that work 
as he blessed the corresponding work in France? 

I think that Dr. A. M. Fairbairn was nearer the mark 
than Dr. Clifford when, writing in 1884, he used the 
following words in reference to the party now dominant 
in France : " And to-day, if you want to find a party that 
has in its heart the will to be intolerant, you have but to 
look across the Channel, where the party most active in 
its negations is prepared to proceed to extreme&t measures 
of repression both as regards the profession and practice 
of religion. 

Dr. Clifford's Maledictions. 

We have presented an instance of the way in which Dr. 
Clifford confers his blessing. Let us see how he bestows 
his denunciations. His treatment of the Congo question 


shows that even when he has a case he goes far to spoil 
it by tactless management. Dr. Clifford, in a public 
speech, called the King of the Belgians " the worst man 
in Europe," and said that the Belgian people were being 
kept in the dark on the Congo question. Has Dr. Clifford 
measured the moral character of every man in Europe 
that he is able to declare that King Leopold is the worst 
of all these hundreds of millions ? Of course he has not, the 
sentence is mere fustian. We all desire the reform of the 
Congo administration, but reform is hindered rather than 
helped by insults hurled at the head of a friendly State. 
Those of us who recollect the unscrupulous way in which 
Dr. Clifford exploited the disgraceful cry of " Chinese 
slavery " will fear that enlightened Belgians will argue 
that the Congo matter is only another of Dr. Clifford's 
exaggerations. He achieved the distinction of writing a 
preface for an anonymous author on that subject, in which 
were reproduced the illustrations which had appeared in 
the Morning Leader. 

Nothing is more instructive than Dr. Clifford's speech, 
unless it be his silence. He who was so eloquent on the 
Chinese labour question had, so far as I have seen, no word 
of exhortation over the New Hebrides labour question. 
Why this difference? Does the convenience of a Liberal 
Government override the judgment of the Nonconformist 

So, too, in reference to what has been called "slave- 
grown cocoa" Dr. Clifford has maintained a significant 
silence. Does the fact that the great Quaker cocoa firms 
of Cadbury, Fry, and Rowntree are concerned in the trade 
explain the fact that he is dumb in this case? In a Liberal 
paper, the Sheffield Independent, I find in the issue of 
December 16th, 1907, the headlines "Slavery Scandals 
tT« Horrors of San Thome" and Principe— Damnable 
lniffic— What the Cadbury Inquiry has Revealed." In 
the Daily New* of a few months ago a missionary, who 
wrote in a tone friendly and considerate to the cocoa firms, 
incidentally made the damaging admission that in the 
course of twenty years' experience he had not known a 
single case of repatriation. I shall deal more fully with 
the question later on. 



Dt. scarcely qualified to write an authorita- 
tive treatise on the morality of preface-writing. I have 
only happened to see two prefaces from his pen. In the 
one, as before stated, he fathered an anonymous work, 
illustrated by misleading pictures ; in the other he recom- 
mended a book of which he declared the main thesis to 
be false to fact. The title of the booklet us " Can a man 
be a Christian who drinks?" Of course the writer means 
" Can a man who drinks be a Christian V He argues that 
it is impossible, while Dr. Clifford says in his preface 
that he has known cases of sincere Christians who were 
not total abstainers. Loyalty to truth would, one might 
think, oblige Dr. Clifford to withhold his approval of a 
book which is false to fact. No, his advice amounts to 
this — although the argument is not correct it will do you 
good to read it. To thus tamper with facts and make 
falsehood a stepping-stone to truth does not argue a very 
lofty sense of principle. 

Dr. Clifford Accused of "A Flat Lib" — Neither Denial 
nor Explanation nor Apology. 

We have given specimens of Dr. Clifford's arrogant 
claims, of his lack of insight in dealing with the situations 
in France and the Congo, and of the remarkable vagaries 
of the Nonconformist conscience in the objects of his 
denunciations. Let us now consider some of his contro- 
versial methods. The Church Times of January 18th, 1907, 
says : " A falsehood which we exposed last June has been 
once more exploited by Dr. Clifford." After showing that 
the article from which Dr. Clifford quoted was written 
more than thirty years ago and under essentially different 
circumstances, the Church Times proceeds: "Dr. Clifford 
quotes remarks of that date as proof that we aim at using 
the compulsory attendance of children at the present public 
elementary schools for the purpose of forcing on all the 
teaching of the Church. The suggestion is a flat lie. 
There is no other word ; for our real position in the matter 
is evident to all who study our columns." Dr. Clifford 
found silence a convenient resource after this exposure. 


Dr. Clifford's Thrhe Black Crows. 

We have all heard the case of "something as black as 
a crow," which by successive stages in successive mouths 
became "three black crows." Dr. Clifford requires no 
assistance in developing a legend. Give him a shred of 
fact to begin with and he is equal, quite unaided, to the 
task of manipulating it out of all recognition. The germ 
of the legend in this case is the following sentence written 
by the late Cardinal Vaughan to Mr. John Redmond, M.P., 
after the passing of the Education Bill of 1902 : "We see 
in the triumph of the Government over the Nonconformist 
opposition as strong a guarantee as we can ever expect- 
to get for liberty to educate Catholic children in the 
Catholic religion in our elementary schools " (Tablet, 
October 11th, 1902). My readers will observe that the 
Cardinal speaks, not of any injurious triumph over Non- 
conformity in the country, but of the extent to which its 
representatives in Parliament had been able or unable to 
frustrate what he was bound to believe the cause of 
religious liberty for Catholic parents and children. How 
does Dr. Clifford extract offence out of this inoffensive 
remark in order to manufacture one of those catch phrases 
which are eo often made to do duty for fact and argument? 
First, he transfers the scene from Parliament to the 
country; next he changes the note of Catholic defence 
into one of defiance. He then sums up his idea in a 
phrase, sets it in inverted commas, and presents it to the 
Nonconformist press, which in its turn exploits it to the 
utmost. But all this is not sufficient for Dr. Clifford. 
He now changes the time of the utterance from after to 
before the passing of the Act. Writing to the Christian 
World (June 6th, 1907), Dr. Clifford said: "We do not 
forget that the late Cardinal Vaughan urged the passing 
of the Education Bill of 1902 on the ground that it was 
a 'triumph over Nonconformity.'" Mr. John G. Sully, 
m the Christian World, of June 13th, 1907, asked Dr. 
Clifford to " withdraw this unjust charge against one who 
can no longer defend himself," but I have not seen any 
response to his appeal. 


We are all familiar with the legend that "the bishops," 
as one version goes, or Convocation, according to another, 
forced the rate-aid proposal on Mr. Balfour. The bishops 
do not appear to have been enamoured of the rate-aid 
proposal; perhaps they were not sure that the schools 
connected with the Church of England would always be 
fairly dealt with by the local authorities. If so, their 
misgivings were well grounded. However that may be, it 
seems the height of folly to believe that a Bill for which 
the main sponsors were Mr. Balfour (a Presbyterian), 
Mr. Chamberlain (a Unitarian), and the Duke of Devon- 
shire, one of the broadest-minded of Churchmen, should be 
represented as the product of Anglican episcopal dictation. 

''Hollow and Insincere." 

The language employed by Dr. Clifford in the education 
controversy is frequently of an objectionable character. 
Breaches of the Ninth Commandment are much in evidence. 
When Mr. Balfour wrote a letter, in which he set forth 
arguments in favour of the Education Bill, Dr. Clifford 
disposed of 'it by the conveniently easy and summary 
method of calling the letter " hollow and insincere." If 
the letter were hollow, why not expose its hollowness? 
To hurl a charge of insincerity at the Prime Minister 
without offering a shadow of proof in its support is con- 
duct from which a decent man of the world would shrink. 
But Dr. Clifford is in business as a leading Nonconformist 
agitator, and shooting poisoned arrows would seem not 
to be forbidden by the moral code of his business. 

" xIrchbishop's Bait." 

Dr. Clifford's references to the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury have, to my knowledge, aroused great indignation 
in the minds of many men uncommitted to either side. 
When the Primate made a mild and conciliatory speech 
at Bamsgate on the Education question, the Daily News 
(which rejects betting news in favour of matter sometimes 
inferior) reported Dr. Clifford's comments under the 
characteristic heading, " Archbishop's Bait — Nonconfor- 


mist* too wary to accept it." This is beneath the level 
of that '■ Yellow Press " which the Daily News affects to 
despise. After expressing its own version in the heading 
of the letter, it proceeds to report the letter of Dr. Clif- 
ford, which supplies an appropriate sequel. He speaks of 
the Primate's speech as "full of fine phrases and of soft 
and deceptive words." In another sentence Dr. Clifford 
writes : " I think the Archbishop's speech does not deserve 
the attention of fair-minded and reasonable men." He 
thus treats the Primate's speech in much the same way 
as he treated Mr. Balfour's letter. By his authority as 
a sort of Baptist Pope, " cherishing a healthy interest in 
his own infallibility," he puts, as far as he can, both letter 
and speech on the Nonconformist Index. 

" Honeyed Words." 

About twelve months ago, in a New Year's address to 
the Baptist denomination, Dr. Clifford warned his 
co-religionists against " the honeyed words " of the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and in his eagerness to encourage 
continued passive resistance went back to the days of the 
pillory in his efforts to excite sectarian hatred. One 
Baptist long, long ago had '' given his ears" for the good 
cause, and should the Baptists of to-day shrink from the 
slighter inconveniences of passive resistance? Such 
language breathes the very spirit of persecution. Even 
a man of the world will acknowledge the appeal to " for- 
get and forgive " comparatively recent wrongs, but a 
Christian minister goes back into ancient history to ferret 
out wrongs done to members of his religious denomination 
many generations before our grandfathers were born. 
Instead of " forgiving his brother till seventy times seven," 
he holds him responsible for the sins of 'men dead and 
buried a hundred years and more before he was born. It 
is the argument of the wolf with the lamb in the fable. 
It is opposed to the Christian religion, the law of love, 
and the spirit of Jesus. It is bitter unreasonableness 
where we have a right to expect " sweet reasonableness." 
It is persecution pure and simple. It feeds sectarian 
l'i-otry and stirs up sectarian strife. It makes the law 


of love into the law of hate. It discredits Christianity 
and disgraces Nonconformity. At one stroke it weakens 
the bonds of brotherly love among Christians, and the 
ties which unite men in civil society. 

Other Appeals to Persecuting Spirit. 

We have seen the intolerant spirit in which Dr. Clifford 
pursues the Archbishop and Bishops of the Church of 
England. I need not give instances of his numerous 
invectives against " the priests " of the Romish Church. 
Now John Bull has in the past tried the plan of persecut- 
ing these same "priests," and found it a poor business. 
He may not like them, but he wishes to do them justice, 
and no invectives from the lips or pen of Dr. Clifford will 
induce Englishmen to go back to the old penal laws 
against Roman Catholics. The pillorying of the Baptist 
referred to by Dr. Clifford is as nothing 'compared with 
the savage persecutions to which Roman Catholics were 
subjected in more recent times. In Ireland, for example, 
where nine-tenths of the people were Catholics, no Catholic 
was allowed «to be a lawyer, doctor, or schoolmaster. A 
priest who married a Protestant and a Catholic was to be 
hanged, and so on. Those days are gone, thanks largely 
to the efforts of an Anglican clergyman, Sydney Smith. 
Even in England the right of public worship for Roman 
Catholics is not a hundred years old. Let us then have 
no further appeals to bigotry. Lord George Gordon riots 
ought to be out of date. 

In addition to the priest and the bishops, Dr. Clifford 
has another object in his religious chamber of horrors, 
and this is '' the nun." He seems to think that to say the 
name is sufficient to excite suspicion, and that the word 
connotes "meet to be persecuted." So indeed it does to 
some narrow minds, but the average Englishman wishes 
to do no injustice to a Roman Catholic " nun " any more 
than to a Protestant 'sister" or "deaconess." Not so 
Dr. Clifford, he was up in arms the other day because 
two teachers in the garb of nuns were reported to be teach- 
ing in one of the London public schools. Inquiry showed 
that they were students from a neighbouring training 


college for teachers, wlio -were merely putting in a few 
of those school practices required from all students in 
training. So vigilant is Dr. Clifford about trifles. 

At the Manchester Town Hall he told in my hearing a 
dreadful tale of a nun who had been getting £60 a year, 
but who, under the " Balfour Act," received £120. This, 
he had previously explained in a letter ^to the press, 
amounted to an endowment of Popery to the extent of 
£60 a year, because the money would probably be handed 
to the priest. What are the facts? The nun in question 
had received £60 a year because her employers (being 
excluded from the ratal benefit so long enjoyed by Board 
Schools and teachers) were unable to pay her more. When 
the Board took charge of the school her salary, according 
to her qualifications, was under the scale of the Board, 
£120 a year. Thus for years she had been fined £60 a 
year for her religion, and it is the tardy removal of this 
injustice which is construed by Dr. Clifford into a bounty 
to her Church. The cessation of a fine is deemed an endow- 
ment! As to how the nun in question spends money she 
has earned, is that a matter for Dr. Clifford, or, indeed, 
for anybody except herself? He has no more to do with 
that than Roman Catholics have to do with the contribu- 
tions of Protestant day school teachers, say, to Dr. Clif- 
ford's own church. The whole incident shows in a strik- 
ing manner how incapable Dr. Clifford is of doing common 
justice to a class he dislikes. 

A Quotation from Milton. 

In his straining after effect Dr. Clifford sometimes 
makes strange slips. At a meeting of Nonconformist 
ministers, held to lodge a protest on the Education 
question, he called out to his assembled brethren, " Awake, 
arise, or be for ever fallen !" Those who remembered their 
Milton would wince under the exhortation, seeing that the 
words quoted occur in Satan's address to the fallen angels 
in I andemonium. Dr. Clifford, as arch demon and them- 
selves as minor demons, would scarcely be a picture to 
their minds. As a preacher Dr. Clifford should know 
how important it is to study the context of a verse It 


is interesting to»note that even in this extreme case the 
instinct of primacy did not desert him. 

Nonconformist Fairness not an Extinct Quality. 

Happily there are signs that all Nonconformists do not 
approve Dr. Clifford's methods and language. As far 
back as September 27th, 1904, appeared a protest on the 
point in the Manchester Guardian, in which Mr. John 
G. Sully, quoting the words of Dr. Clifford to the effect 
that Parliament had been engaged in "supplying the 
agents of the Anglican and Roman Churches with the 
instruments by which they may pick the pockets of their 
neighbours," Mr. Sully went on to say, " I would earnestly 
protest against such charges. Surely our case for an 
amendment of the Education Acts is being steadily given 
away by Dr. Clifford's advocacy and the extravagance of 
most passive resisters. O conscience ! "What things are 
still being said and done in thy name." Referring to the 
proposal for the Free Church Council to lend moral support 
to the Welsh campaign of resistance to the Default Bill 
engineered by Mr. Lloyd George, he added, " If this is 
confirmed by tHe General Committee a most severe blow 
will be given to Nonconformity, and, what is more, to the 
cause of our common Christianity." 

In the same issue of the Manchester Guardian there 
also appeared a letter from the Rev. J. M. Phillips, of 
Middleton, who, writing as a Congregational minister, 
said : " As an educationist who thinks more of the interests 
of the children than of sects — be they Established or 
Free — my best instincts rebel against the passive resistance 
movement as wrong in principle and doubtful in results." 

On one occasion Dr. Clifford had delivered one of his 
violent harangues against the bishops and clergy of the 
Church of England, when the Rev. R. J. Campbell rose 
and expressly dissociated himself from the sentiments 
the former had expressed. A Free Church deputation to 
the Church Congress, held at Yarmouth last summer, 
expressed "the just resentment" with which many Non- 
conformists had witnessed the misrepresentations of the 
Archbishop's words and motives which had been put for- 


ward. In the Baptist Union itself, when the unsatisfac- 
tory denominational statistics were under discussion, one 
minister indicated political activity as a hindrance to 
spiritual life, and said that they could scarcely keep pace 
with Dr. Clifford's extravagant youthfulness. It is certain 
that political effort levies a heavy toll on the religious 
spirit of a denomination. 

Platfobm ''Morality." 

In April, 1907, the Christian World contained a lead- 
ing article which is not without bearing on the platform 
utterances of some Free Church leaders. ''There are 
vices of the platform," it said, " as patent as those of the 
6lums. The place is full of ethical dangers, which 
prominent professors of morality all too frequently fall 
into. Oratory in itself is an exercise sufficiently parlous 
to the soul. There have not been wanting writers who 
have condemned it as always on a moral plane more or less 
low. Froude could not away with eloquence ; it was nearly 
always, he said, misleading, dishonest to the simple fact. 
What is unquestionably the fact is that the habit of public 
speaking, of addressing applauding audiences, is one full 
of perils to character, perils that unchecked may eat away 
a man's whole moral fibre, and leave him, whose business 
is the praise of sanctity, himself at its farthest remove." 

The Game of " Fast and Loose " with Passive 
Resistance Principles. 

We know, from being told, that the sacred principle of 
passive resistance is that no one must be obliged to 
contribute towards religious teaching to which he con- 
scientiously objects. Let us see how Dr. Clifford himself 
keeps this rule. At Newcastle, in 1904, he advocated 
before the Free Church National Council, and secured the 
adoption of a plan of " simple Biblical instruction " as a 
suggestion of the way in which he and his friends would 
meet the religious difficulty. Under it the Jew would pay 
towards New Testament teaching, which he utterly 
rejects ; the Unitarian would help to propagate Trinitarian 


doctrine; the Roman Catholic would contribute towards 
Protestant teaching given in a Protestant atmosphere 
through the medium of a Protestant version ; the Atheist 
would give his quota in aid of theistical teaching; the 
Agnostic would promote the representation as historical 
facts of what he holds to be legendary, and so on. It is 
obvious then that this scheme of the passive registers con- 
tains materials for the manufacture of other passive 
registers by the million. Mr. Gerard N. Ford, of Man- 
chester, opposed the proposal of Dr. Clifford, and said 
that as a passive resister himself he would be no party to 
making passive registers of others, but he was over-ruled. 
The scheme included a conscience clause — in itself a tacit 
acknowledgment that some consciences would be violated 
by being subjected to the religious teaching he advocated. 
A conscience clause which, they have often told us, is no 
protection for the Dissenter as against the Churchman, 
though both are Christians, is quite a sufficient protection 
for the non-Christian as against the Christian,, when it 
suits the convenience of Dr. Clifford. The hollowness of 
the old cry, " The Conscience clause no Protection," could 
not be more clearly proved. 

The Wobbling op Dr. Clifford. 

After the plan of "simple Bible teaching" had been 
launched at the Newcastle Conference, the doom which 
apparently attaches to Newcastle Conferences descended 
upon it. The fundamental contradiction of passive resist- 
ance principles involved was soon made apparent, even 
to the leaders of the Council, and the result appeared in 
successive explanationlsi,. interpretations, and modifica- 
tions thereof. That the offspring of the Free Church 
Council was unquestionably illegitimate in its origin was 
only too obvious. The plan adopted was to reduce their 
child's size, so that they were able to tell a wondering 
and amused world that if illegitimate it was, at any 
rate, a little one. They did this without acknowledging 
their obligations to Captain Marryat. The religious food 
of " simple Bible teaching " subjected to Dr. Clifford's re- 
ducing process, thinned down into a Bort of diet of Bible 


scraps. These bite were to be robbed of any religious 
juice they contained by the condition that the treatment 
of them was to be " exclusively of an ethical, historical, 
and literary character." So that for genuine religious 
teaching was substituted merely mental cultivation under 
the guise of ,; Bible teaching." When the soul of the 
child, greatly hungering, asks Dr. Clifford for " bread " 
he offers it this Benthamite " stone." 

The attenuated and nebulous scheme of the Council 
naturally excited the misgivings! of denomi nationalists. 
Dr. asked Dr. Clifford if hisi scheme of religious 
instruction included the teaching of the deity of Jesus 
Christ, but was unable to extract a clear answer. The 
dilemma of Dr. Clifford was obvious. If he said no, he 
would offend Mr. Perks, the Rev. J. S. Lidgett, and the 
other Methodists who support the Free Church Council; 
if he said yes, he would stand convicted on his own admis- 
sion of seeking to compel Jews, Unitarians, Agnostics, 
and others to contribute towards the payment of religious 
instruction to which they conscientiously object, thus 
violating the fundamental principle of passive resistance. 
A religious leader who puts forward a plan for the reli- 
gious education of six millions of English children and 
when asked a straightforward question on a vital point 
declines to give a straightforward answer scarcely com- 
mends himself or his friends or his cause to reasonable 
and fair-minded men. The children of a whole nation 
were never intended to become a mere pawn in Dr. Clif- 
ford's partisan game. 

Passive Resistance a Geographical Expression. 

We have seen that passive resistance principles, 
preached by Congregationalists in England, are abjured 
by them in India in the operations of the London Mis- 
sionary Society. So many degrees of longitude, and be- 
hold ! another code of morals. Sometimes it is a ques- 
tion of latitude, as in the case of Scotland. Many passive 
rtsisters speak of Scotland as an educational model, and 
Dr. Clifford, appealing to the electors of a, Scotch con- 
stituency in a bye-election before 1906, asked them to 


send a member* who would help him in his struggle 
against Mr. Balfour's " iniquitous " Education Act. Yet 
he knew, as we all know, that in Scotland a denomina- 
tional formulary, the Shorter Catechism, is taught (1) in 
the Board schools, (2) by the school teachers, (3) in school 
hours, and (4) entirely at the public expense. By this 
arrangement many thousand consciences are violated. 
From all this one would think that a passive resister who 
possessed an unsophisticated conscience would shrink in 
disgust. But no ; on men thus guilty of a flagrant breach 
of the passive resistance rule, Dr. Clifford smiles approval, 
treats them as friends and allies, and begs their aid in 
his passive resistance crusade. Presbyterianism, with a 
beam in its own eye, was invited to ,'ielp him in extracting 
the mote out of the Anglican eye. \nd Presbyteriaiiisin 
proved nothing loth to return to an old-time practice. 

I have spoken of passive resistance as a geographical 
expression — one rule in England and another in India ; 
again one rule south of the Cheviots and quite another on 
the north, but, of course, the true explanation is quite 
different. The, passive resistance theory was devised in 
<\ political exigency as a temporary expedient and for 
local use. Like the militia, it was not intended for em- 
ployment outside England. That the movement is a 
matter of minor tactics rather than of high principle 
is amply proved by the fact that Mr. Hollowell's co-reli- 
gionists flout in India the principles they preach in Eng- 
land, while Dr. Clifford blesses on one side of the Scotch 
Border what he curses on the other. 

"No Te*ts foe Teachers," i.e., No Honest Tests, But 
Backstairs Ones. 

The passive resistance leaders who took up the cry of 
" No religious tests for teachers " probably thought that 
they had got hold of a popular catch-phrase which would 
moreover help to ingratiate them with that powerful sec- 
tion of the day school teachers which regards all associa- 
tion with the clergy as a symbol of their own professional 
subordination. But the cry was scarcely an honest one, 
as may easily be proved. Indeed, the way in which the 


two opposing parties approach this question is character- 
istic The churches attacked started with the interests 
of the children and the wishes of the parents. Children 
need religious education, and their parents desire it. 
Hence in their interests it must be given. But those 
who desire an end implicitly desire the means necessary 
to the attainment of that end, and the demand for reli- 
gious instruction is virtually a demand for teachers; capable 
of living it. If this requirement clashes with the aims 
or convenience of prospective teachers, these latter must 
be told that the thousands of teachers exist for^ the mil- 
lions of children, and not vice versa. All this is honest, 
straightforward, and above-board. It merely carries into 
practice the principle that those who teach a subject 
should be qualified to teach it. 

So much for the party attacked. What of the attacking 
party which echoes the cry of "no tests"? We find Mr. 
Perks, to take one notable example, stating in the House 
of Commons that Wesleyans desired not merely Bible 
teaching but also Bible instruction. Is, then, this Bible 
instruction to be given by men who do not believe what 
they teach — by anyone who comes 'along? Obviously 
either the obligation to give the Bible instruction desired 
by Mr. Perks and his brother Wesleyans reacts selectively 
on the teachers, or it does not. If it does react, and keeps 
out unsuitable teachers, a test is in actual operation, and 
the cry of " no tests " is a mockery. If it does not, and 
profussed enemies of the Bible are among those set to 
teach the Bible, what a situation is created ! Any attempt 
t<> escape the dilemma, just indicated by a conscience 
clause for teachers would place the religious education of 
the country at the mercy of the N.U.T. or any powerful 
croup of teachers. The difference between the two parties 
is that Churchmen openly and honestly advocate only so 
much of a test as is necessary for efficiency of teaching, 
while the Nonconformists with loud shouts put out tests 
at the front door, only to re-introduce them surreptitiously 
at the back. The Bishop of St. Asaph complained that 
in choosing teachers for a certain part of Wales the 
Nonconformist caucus met and decided which candidate 


to support in tbe Board meetings on the occasion of a 
teacher's election. 

The treatment of teachers in West Riding denomi- 
national schools by the County Council for that division, 
as also that practised in parts of Wales, seems to have 
opened the eyes of teachers to the fact that Nonconfor- 
mists took up the cry of " No tests " mainly as a party 
weapon. Salaries attempted to be docked here, salaries 
held back before the summer holidays there — these are 
queer proofs of friendship. The National Union of 
Teachers has been driven to black-list certain Swansea 
schools, and Mr. Pickles, president of the N.U.T., spoke 
of the Anglican hedgehog and the Free Church porcu- 
pine as needing to live on better terms with each other. 
The Free Church porcupine must, he said, learn to flatten 
its quills. The hedgehog is, I believe, an inoffensive 
creature, which only rolls itself up as a measure of self- 
defence against an aggressor. It is to be hoped that 
our porcupines will note the significant hint given them 
by the president of the National Union of Teachers. It 
is one of numerous signs that the country is beginning to 
grow weary of *their tactics. 

*The general public has not time to follow the detailed 
administration of the Education Act, and it may there- 
fore serve to give an instance of the persecuting spirit 
displayed by certain local educational authorities where 
Free Churchmen sway the Council. A Welsh correspon- 
dent, writing in the Christian World for December 26th, 
1907, says : " The tenacity with which Welsh Education 
Authorities cling to the fundamental principles under- 
lying the Welsh Education Revolt of three or four years 
ago materially increases Mr. McKenna's perplexities in 
the administration of his already difficult department. 
At the time of writing some of these authorities are per- 
plexed to determine to what extent Christmastide's gene- 
rous consideration for individual Non-Provided School 
teachers justifies temporary departure from the principle 
of No-Rate-Aid." 

In the latter sentence we have the edifying spectacle 
of Welsh Nonconformists considering whether a slight 


instalment of justice should be given to teachers in de- 
nominational Schools. And this temporary and partial 
remission of the fine imposed on these victims of Jree 
Church tvranny is represented in the hypocritical guise 
of a Christmas dole. How long has the partial cessation 
of persecution been deemed a mark of "generous con- 
sideration" ? These little touches are the most self-reveal- 
ing of all. 

I will deal more fully with the of the late London 
County Council, of which Mr. Scott Lidgett was a leading 
member. Whoever is responsible for the denominational 
system of education, all will agree that the teachers em- 
ployed in those schools are not, yet Free Churchmen 
descend to the meanness and injustice of penalising those 
who earn their daily bread in the schools which the 
friends of justice and equality dislike. I extract the 
following report from the Manchester Guardian for 
Janiirur 30th, 1907: — 


"Yesterday afternoon the London County Council 
received from the Education Committee a report re- 
commending that increases be made in the salaries paid 
to teachers in non-provided schools. 

" Mr. A. J. Shepheard, in moving the adoption of 
the report, said it was proposed that every teacher in 
a non-provided school would either immediately or 
within three years at the latest be put upon at least the 
minimum of the scale in the Council schools. They 
would be put on the minimum scale immediately unless 
the increase in doing so was more than £20. If it were 
more than £20 the increase would be spread over one, 
two, or three years. The Committee felt that in making 
this recommendation they were only doing an act rf 
justice which they promised as far bach as June, 1905. 

" Mr. J. T. Taylor described the recommendation as 
a tardy, imperfect, and inadequate reparation of a great 
injustice. On the principle, however, that half a loaf 
was better than no bread he would accept what was 


offered rather, than move to refer it back for the purpose 
of getting all the teachers were entitled to. 

" Sir T. Brooke-Hitching said he thought the teachers 
in non-provided schools -were to be congratulated on 
the nearness of the County Council elections'." 
We note on the above extract that^— 

1. An act of justice promised in June, 1905, was not 
performed till 1907, when the fear of the electors was 
upon them. 

2. Even then denominational teachers were to be raised 
only to the minimum scale applied to teachers in the 
favoured provided schools. 

3. Where the change would involve an increase of 
more than £20 the shock of equal treatment would prob- 
ably prove too great for the recipients. Hence the steps 
towards equality must be graded and take in some cases 
three years to travel. 

Londoners showed in the election of March, 1907, what 
they thought of this miserable work, in which breach of 
faith competed with meanness for the front place. How 
amusing to behold a moribund and discredited party pro- 
posing a partial and grudging reparation of their own act 
of injustice, and that at the expense of the new Council. 
They arranged for the gradations of advance towards the 
haven of the minimum scale, to be spread in some cases 
over three years, as if their party were perpetual masters 
of the City Council. How does a prominent Congrega- 
tionalist like Mr. A. J. Shepheard, the chairman of the 
Education Committee, or a leading Wesleyan minister 
like the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, reconcile their treatment of 
these labourers in the educational field with common 
justice and common fairness? I say nothing of their 
Christianity. On that point I am content to quote words 
from the Epistle of St. James (v. 4), which are only too 
applicable to the occasion : " Behold, the hire of the 
labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is 
of you kept back by fraud, crieth : and the cries of them 
which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord 
of sabaoth." 

The unfair action of the L.C.C. Education Committee 


was not confined to its victims in the non-provided schools. 
The people of London were cheated of their rights to 
publicity in regard to the proceedings of that committee. 
Succeeding to the work of the London School Board, which 
had always opened its doors to reporters, the Education 
Committee of the County Council abrogated a wholesome 
practice of over thirty years' standing, and decided to dis- 
pose of public money, to the extent of four millions yearly, 
in secrecy. Riding off characteristically on the purely 
technical plea that the Education Committee was not a 
committee of the whole Council, they decided to persist 
in the policy of shunning publicity in spite of protests 
alike from friends and foes. What the London public saw 
was the material point that whereas the old School Board 
had welcomed the light, the new Education Committee 
shunned it. Of course, this rather mean action was dic- 
tated more suo by the loftiest motives. Still, as the elec- 
tion of March, 1907, approached, and the dominant party 
began to cast about for support at the forthcoming polls, 
some concession to public opinion was probably felt to 
be politic, for Mr. Mackinnon Wood made the magnani- 
mous declaration that the proceedings of the Education 
Committee would be open to the public— ^after March, 
that is, under the next Council ! The British Weekly 
grimly reminded Mr. Wood that after March the settle- 
ment of the matter might be in other hands. And so it 
proved. But what shall we say of the sublimity of arro- 
gant folly which declines to correct an admitted mistake 
and pledges a future Council which is beyond its control to 
remedy the wrong done by the present one which is under 
its control? The old Council declines to repent and lead 
a better life, but promises that the new Council shall 
repent and depart from the sins of its predecessor. What 
should we think of a Prime Minister who declared that a 
practice initiated by his own party in the lifetime of 
that Parliament had been wrong, but that after the disso- 
lution the practice should be reversed? Stated thus baldly 
Mr Wood's attitude is seen to be utterly irrational, but, 
of course, his language is saved from sheer Bedlamism 
by the audacious assumption that the London County 


Council was f<ir all time in the hands of his party, and 
that he, as its absolute dictator, was free to dispose of 
its fortunes after the coming election as before. We know 
how rudely that fond delusion was dispelled in the elec- 
tion of 1907, and with what virulence of criticism every 
movement of the new majority has been followed by those 
London papers which had assumed that the Council was 
for all time to be in the hands of their party. The Daily 
News represents so accurately the narrowness and bitter- 
ness of the Free Church party that it may be worth while 
to give a specimen or two of its discreditable tactics. 

Under the heading " Execrable Taste," it printed a 
letter from a correspondent who protested against the 
action of a clergyman who had presumed to preach the 
day school sermons in his church about Christmas time. 
It was held that Nonconformists who attended the service 
at that festive season would be annoyed at such a subject 
being chosen. One would think that the "execrable 
taste " exhibited consisted in the effort of chapel people to 
dictate church services. Bui no, it was " execrable taste," 
it seems, not to bow to such dictation ! 

When in December, 1907, the Municipal Reformers de- 
cided to appeal for private funds to help necessitous chil- 
dren rather than add to the heavy rates of the Metropolis 
by opening a fresh claim for municipal expenditure, the 
Daily News headed the leader in which it commented on 
this step with the words " Let them starve." The "yellow 
press," at which the Daily News often self-righteously 
rails, seldom descends so low as this. The Spectator, 
in the following words, administered a merited rebuke: 
" A more unjust or unjustifiable suggestion it would be 
difficult to imagine. The Daily News has every right to 
hold and express its own views strongly, and to hit its 
opponents hard, but to impute cynical callousness and 
cold-blooded barbarity is utterly unworthy of English 
journalism, and must lower the paper in the opinion of 
all fair-minded men. Those who oppose feeding the chil- 
dren out of the rates may be wrong, but we venture to 
sav that they care about the true interests of the children 
far more than those who in their levity and ignorance are 


as careless in regard to pauperising the coming generation 
as they are in regard to the burdens laid upon the poor 
or the slanderous accusations which they prefer against 
their opponents." 

For anyone to condemn any action of the majority on 
the last County Council, or to support that of the present 
majority, is, in the eyes of the Daily News, to commit 
the unpardonable sin. When the British Weekly attacked 
the late Council as lacking in economy, efficiency, and 
other virtues, the Daily News hotly resented the attack, 
and complained that the name of Mr. Mackinnon Wood 
had been miswritten. By way of punishment it dubbed 
Dr. Nicoll's organ a "Moderate" paper, for to the Daily 
News the application of that hated word as a nickname 
saved all need for argument. Yet the Daily News can on 
occasion preach self-restraint in controversy. Here are 
its words : " We may, however, suggest that the discussion 
of these matters is an opportunity for displaying the 
gentlenesis and personal restraint without which there can 
be no truly Christian conduct." Why this marked differ- 
ence of tone? The explanation is that in the latter case 
Free Churchmen, instead of attacking their political and 
ecclesiastical foes, were turning their arms against each 
other over the question of the "New Theology." We thank 
the Daily News for teaching us that " without gentleness 
and personal restraint there can be no truly Christian 
conduct." We decline to limit the sweep of the dictum 
to those cases which suit the partisan convenience of the 
Daily News, and even presume to apply that paper's test 
of Christian conduct to its own utterances. Weighed in 
its own balances, it is 1 found wanting. 

The Nemesis op History. 

When I reflect on the respectful attitude of most 
Liberal and Nonconformist statesmen of the present day 
to Roman Catholics and their schools, my mind is irre- 
sistibly carried back to the deeds of Cromwell in Ireland 
and the persecuting laws under which Catholics suffered 
both in England and Ireland down to a comparatively 
recent period. While certain Dissenters in this country 


are going back "centuries for cases of comparatively mild 
persecution of their body, or, in the guise of passive re- 
sisters, are placing on their own heads an empty simula- 
crum of the martyr's crown. Catholics look back upon a 
long and blood-stained record of relentless persecution 
suffered at the hands of Protestants here and in Ireland. 
What Nonconformists conveniently forget, they remember. 
They recall the deeds of Cromwell two and a half centuries 
ago — the massacre of over 2,000 persons at Drogheda — a 
church fired to drive out the refugees who had taken shelter 
therein — Cromwell's Puritan soldiers slaughtering the hap- 
less wretches as they emerged from the flames only to 
perish by the sword — the insulting cry of Cromwell's 
troopers as the " pacified " islanders were given the option 
of " Hell or Connaught." These were " methods of bar- 
barism " indeed, but which Cromwell seems to have re- 
garded as a regrettable necessity. 

Turn to England in 1769, and at the Old Bailey Father 
James Talbot, brother of the Earl of Shrewsbury, stands 
indicted on the capital charge of having celebrated mass, 
being onlv acauitted for want of evidence. Take the Lord 
Gordon "'No Popery" riots of 1780. Take, finally, the 
fact that only in 1829, less than eighty years ago, was the 
Catholic Emancipation Act passed. 

What is to-day's counterpart to this 1 picture of the past f 
Is not its Nemesis upon us now? True, there is Mr. 
Hollowell, a Cromwellian, but without Cromwell's coercive 
resources, who says vaguely that England must talk 
to Roman Catholics after the modern French style — ■ 
for even he feela that Cromwellian methods are now 
slightly out of date. In his mouth the cry of the Puritan 
soldiery, " To Hell or Connaught," is softened down into 
the alternative of " Bible teaching or Secular Education." 
Then, too, there is Dr. Clifford, who rails at " the priest " 
from press and platform, but there is no lightning in his 
stage thunder. The Baptist champion may manage to 
stir up sectarian hatred among his followers, but he will 
not succeed in engaging English statesmen to re-enter 
on the hateful paths of religious persecution. No, the 
real antithesis of the old persecuting days is #een in the 


comparative impotence of the two hundred Nonconformist 
members of Parliament in contrast with the influence of 
Mr. Redmond's eighty Catholics, or when the Dublin Con- 
vention threw Mr. Birrell's Irish Council Bill in his face, 
and Mr. Birrell meekly bowed his head, or when Mr. 
Birrell introduced Clause 4 of his Education Bill (as he 
himself said) " to please the Roman Catholics and Jews," 
or when Mr. MeKenna dropped his 1 one-fifteenth bill at 
the hint of passive resistance from Catholics, or when 
the Prime Minister of England sat in unprotesting silence 
to be told by the Roman Catholic Archbishop that some 
of the new training college regulations they would not 
obey, or when Sir Henry Campb ell-Ban nerman said he 
had always thought that they should have special treat- 
ment, or when an agnostic statesman like Mr. John Morley 
twenty years ago suggested separate treatment for 
Catholics and Jews, or when Dr. Dale and Mr. Henry 
Richards (as members of the minority in the Royal Com- 
mission on Education presided over by Lord Cross) re- 
commended that Roman Catholics should be allowed to 
retain their present schools, and that new ones erected 
where required by a Roman Catholic population should, 
unlike the rule for all other religious bodies, be admitted 
without question to the Government grant. 

May I quote here what I wrote in 1889 in summing up 
a chapter headed "Will Roman Catholic grant-aided 
schools be superseded 1" : "To sum up the argument under 
this head, the Roman Catholicsi declare that they mean to 
keep their schools ; they have kept them so far, not one 
having been transferred to School Board control; they 
have increased their average attendance in a greater pro- 
portion than any other class of denominational school; 
they possess great advantages 1 over every other church 
in their unity and subordination, as well as in the great 
political influence wielded at will by the Pope and the 
Catholic hierarchy; they have already won concessions 
denied to all others from the unseotarian party on various 
School Boards, and the Minority Commissioners them- 
selves, the professed enemies of sacerdotalism, propose in 
so many words to allow them exceptional privileges. Will 


anyone contend,* in face of these facts, that Roman 
Catholic schools are likely to be superseded?" 

Nothing has happened since 1889 to weaken the force 
of the above words ; much has occurred to add force to 
them. By commencing a policy of passive resistance, 
Dissenters have forged a weapon on which Roman Catho- 
lics will not scruple to improve should occasion call, for 
their passive resistance will not be confined to the buying 
in of one another's teapots. Dissenters will see, when 
their bad example is followed and enlarged upon, what 
powers for mischief were contained in that movement of 
passive resistance, which, according to Dr. Clifford, is 
" divine in its impulse, divine in its advance, and divine 
in its illimitable issues." If, as may possibly happen, 
one of its " illimitable issues " is a widespread movement 
of passive resistance as a protest against the Free Church 
clericalism of Dr. Clifford and his friends, I am afraid that 
these latter will find it hard to apply the adjectifve 
" divine " to such operations. In their usual short- 
sighted way, they seem to have imagined that they could 
pick up passive resistance and put it down at pleasure, 
preserving it as a sort of Nonconformist patent or pro- 
prietary article which no other religionist must sacrile- 
giously appropriate to other than Dissenting purposes. 

Some Dissenters would consent, though with reluctance, 
to grant Roman Catholics their way on the education 
question, who yet hope to bully and browbeat the Church 
of England into submission to the Nonconformist de- 
mands'. But the discussions of the last year or two have 
amply proved that enforced undenominationalism would 
be unacceptable to many sincere and devoted Anglicans. 
If the Roman Catholics represent the edge of the wedge 
which is destined to make a breach in the Nonconformist 
arrogant claim, the body of that wedge is represented 
by that large body of Church opinion which declines to 
worship at the Cowper-Temple shrine. 

Cowper-Templeism Not Likely to Endure if Generally 
Accepted — Sunshine Abolished for Moonshine. 
Nothing in modern education is more marvellous than 
the development of the Nonconformist affection for Cow- 


per-Templeism, or what is called " simple Bible teaching." 
This teaching was not originated by them, but was com- 
menced, as Mr. Hollowell once put it, "to please the 
clergy." They originated it in the Board schools, not 
as the ideal system for all schools, but as the best pos- 
sible under the limitations imposed on those schools. 
Had Churchmen deemed Cowper-Templeisim completely 
satisfactory, they would have transferred all their schools 
to the Boards, which they did not. But the amount of 
acceptance which the religious teaching of the Board 
schools won was due (1) To the denominationally-trained 
teachers who first worked it. (These colleges Mr. McKenna 
and the Nonconformists now seek to rob of their distinc- 
tive character.) (2) To the existence alongside of ihe 
Board schools of the denominational schools, the reli- 
gious teaching in which was at once a standard, a stimu- 
lus and a guarantee for the religious teaching in Board 
schools. (These schools are to give place in *-he Non- 
conformist scheme to one uniform type of school.) So 
that Dr. Clifford desires to abolish the sun, but retain 
moonshine. He is like a man who saws vigorously be- 
tween the tree trunk and the branch on which he is 

But let us suppose all these objections waived and a 
system of Bible teaching universally established — would 
its life be worth five years' purchase? Religious instruc- 
tion in public day schools would then have but one nc/.k. 
Would there be no Caligula to seize the long-looked-for 
opportunity and deliver the fatal blow? If the secularists 
started a campaign of passive resistance to a system which 
infringed their consciences, where would the system find 
its defenders? Can we imagine Mr Hollowell and his 
friends looking on with complacency while, say, Mr. 
Blutchford and his followers who reject Christianity went 
to prison rather than pay towards teaching to which 
they conscientiously objected? Moreover, the fortunes 
of religious education would be at the mercy of the orga- 
nised teachers. A large section of the teachers desire 
to be purely civil servants, and they would only have to 
raise the cry of no tests for teachers to bring the whole 


system to a deadlock. Even those who desire " simple 
Bible teaching " for its own sake cannot afford to subject 
its continued existence to such hazards. Wesley ans in 
particular would find themselves betrayed, and would 
discover when it was too late that the educational p< iicy 
of John Scott was wiser than that of John Scott Lidgett. 

" Secular Solution " Not Fair To All. 

Secular education is, we are told, the only " solution " 
fair to all. It would be more correct to say that the 
principle of allowing the minority to veto the will of the 
majority is therein consistently carried out. Free 
Churchmen, like Dr. Massie, who desire secular educa- 
tion but advocate Cbwper-Templeism from pure expedi- 
ency, admit the principle of veto up to the point that 
pleases Nonconformists, but decline for the present to 
go further. They do not allow Jews to veto the New 
Testament, or Unitarians to veto any reference to the 
Trinity. Still less would they permit Mr. Blatchford to 
veto any reference to the Christianity he rejects. But 
the secularist declines to allow the Free Churchman to 
play fast and*loose with the principle to suit the tem- 
porary exigency of the latter. He regards as immoral 
the attitude of Dr. Massie, who believes that total pro- 
hibition is the proper course, but declines to take it be- 
cause it is unpopular. Mr. Balfour " would sweep the 
country" if Dr. Massie and his friends displayed fidelity 
to conviction 1 The obvious course for men who are never 
tired of trumpeting the superlative tenderness of their 
conscience is to refuse to obey its dictates ! As a matter 
of fact, they do not possess conscience enough to enable 
them to obey conscience. 

When Dr. Massie says that if Free Churchmen advo- 
cated a universal system of secular schools Mr. Balfour 
would be able to sweep the country, he admits, what we 
all know to be the fact, that the vast majority of English 
parents desire for their children a religious training. 
They know that religious teaching given by those who 
believe what they teach will make their children better 
sons and daughters, better in the home and better out- 


side it. And what the parents desire for their children 
the children's own needs claim for them. It is on these 
two pillars — the wish of the parents and the needs of the 
children — that religious education in the day schools 
ought righteously to stand secure. A minority in the 
State has no right to interpose and say" because I do not 
want this for my children you shall not have it for yours." 
That would be not the rule of the majority, but the 
tyranny of the minority. 

The State is not neutral as regards religion in the day 
school if it takes hold of the child under the secular 
system, compels its attendance for the full school time, 
and then leaves religious instruction to be given as a sort 
of punishment lesson out of the ordinary hours. The 
child is weary in mind and body at the end of the secu- 
lar hours, and in many cases cannot stay for an extra 
religious lesson if it would. Some, especially girls, have 
home tasks awaiting them, ; some have to take their 
fathers' meals, others have to run errands, and not a few 
have to hurry off to perform little paid tasks in order to 
help out the family finances. In view of facts like these 
it is idle for doctrinaire writers to speak of secular edu- 
cation either as a " solution " or as being fair to all 
concerned. It is rather a dissolution than a solution. 

Consider, too, what would be the natural effect on a 
child's mind of seeing so vital a subject as religious teach- 
ing thrust out of the programme of school subjects. 
Would it not be that that particular subject was com- 
paratively unimportant? On exactly the same principle, 
though in a lesser degree, the distinctive elements dropped 
out in paring down the religious teaching to the Cowps«r- 
Temple model will be regarded by the children us of 
minor importance. What is omitted they will .leem to be 

Hold op Denominational Schools on English Psoplh. 

When the School Board system was launched in 1870 
it was freely predicted that in a few years the new schools 
would absorb their denominational rivals. Every advan- 
tage appeared to be on their side. With new and superior 


buildings, staffed 'with teachers drawing larger salaries, 
with all the latest educational appliances at command, 
enjoying also the prestige of public civic control and 
the special financial advantage of full command of the 
rates, the Board schools, in spite of all, failed to crush 
out their competitors. Free education, it was thought, 
would prove their ruin, but they survived the change. 
Even where School Boards were actually instituted large 
numbers of such cases were not the result of the people's 
free choice, but followed upon compulsory orders from 
the Central Department. A system of denominational 
teaching which so largely survived thirty-two years of 
such unequal competition must possess a large hold on 
the nation's heart and life. It has lived because it has 
deserved to live. A class of school which has won the 
regard of the English people should not lightly be de- 
stroyed. We should remember that the value of a type 
is not to be measured merely by the number of its exist- 
ing specimens. A few more or less of a certain class of 
school makes little matter, but the loss of a type is 

Even those who intensely dislike what they call the 
" sectarian " element, which they regard as an inevitable 
incident in denominational teaching, should ask them- 
selves whether a certain proportion of this may not be tole- 
rated for the sake of the religious training and excellent 
moral influence with which it is associated. For, after 
all, " sectarianism " is but the seamy side of religion — 
the imperfect human grasp of the perfect Divine truth — 
the parti-coloured spectrum into which the varieties of 
mortal apprehension break the white light of the im- 
mortal verities. No one religious body seems capable 
of grasping with full apprehension and perfect harmony 
the revelation of Divine truth. Hence it is the duty of 
each religious body to bear its witness to the deposit 
of truth committed to its care, until the time comes 
when the apparently discordant notes shall be attuned 
to "make one music." 

The American Ambassador to this country, Mr. White- 
law Reid, in a recent address to American teachers, gave 


the palm to English training in religious reverence and 
social discipline. At a time when the influences adverse 
to all spiritual belief are so powerful, the nation can 
ill afford to weaken the religious influences in actual 
operation. In the denominational schools characters 
have been moulded, lives fashioned, good citizens formed. 
Those who rail most vehemently against " the priest," 
and seek to utterly destroy denominational teaching, 
would, I think, hesitate to incur such grave responsibility 
if they viewed the matter more from the side of the 
children's needs and less from the standpoint of sec- 
tarian animosity What is to take the place of the 
present definite teaching in Roman Catholic schools, for 
example? Cowper-Templeism, taught under the "No 
Tests for Teachers " system by one who might be a pro- 
fessed unbeliever in what he taught? The avenues of 
a Catholic child's mind and heart are largely closed to 
any possibility of moral benefit from such lessons, if 
lessons' they can be called for him. Why, then, destroy 
a moral influence for which you can produce no equiva- 
lent? I say "moral" deliberately, for it is as a moralis- 
ing force that it enters into the national life as a valu- 
able civic influence. Asi the late Cardinal Vaughan once 
said : " We will make the children of our own people 
good citizens in making them good Catholics." He went 
on to point out that no form of Protestantism could, as 
a matter of fact, take the place of Catholicism for these 
children, and that the choice lay for them between the 
religion of their parents and no religion at all. Will 
Dr. Clifford and his followers say- — rather bad Catholics 
and hooligans than good Catholics and good citizens? 
If so, they are imitating what ought to be the deterrent 
example of certain Christian sects who preferred the 
triumph of Mahometanism to the sway of their hated 
Christian rivals. They had their way, and those districts 
in the East of Europe are Mahometan to this day. How 
stands the account of those so-called Christians with the 
genius of Christianity? And if Dr. Clifford succeeds in 
enlarging the sphere' and influence of irreligion in Eng- 
land rather than allow room for the form of Christian 


religion he dislikes, how shall he escape the doom of 
him who causes not one only, but thousands upon thou- 
sands of " these little ones " to offend ? 

If Day-school Education Becomes Shcular, Whosb 
the Blame? 

From time to time there seems to assail the minds 
of Free Churchmen an uneasy suspicion that the course 
they are pursuing is tending towards the wholesale secu- 
larisation of day-school education. Accordingly they 
hasten to assert that this admittedly deplorable result, 
if realised, will be due, not to their action, but to that 
of the wicked denominationalists. Men who attacked 
the religious teaching they disliked, and, though not a 
few of them preferred secular education, took up with 
Cowper-Templeism as a convenience, now hurl this latter 
at the heads of the very men who mostly drew up the 
schemes of religious education in the Council schools, 
and say — this or secular education ! 

But let us examine a little more closely this latest and 
wildest of the Nonconformist war-cries. What is the 
record of the party accused, and what is the record of 
the party accusing? By their deeds let each be judged. 
Those who are accused of secularising education are those 
who from first to last have borne witness for the cause 
of religious education — who during the last fifty years 
have spent many millions of money to ensure that day 
school education shall be religious and have given in 
that cause personal service, sympathy, and devotion be- 
yond the price of millions — which when it beheld the 
children outside its own schools without Bible instruc- 
tion became the principal agents in devising such a sys- 
tem of religious teaching as the imperfect circumstances 
allowed — who have attacked no man's system of reli- 
gious teaching, but sought to impart the truth com- 
mitted to it in the way it knows, and has fully proved — 
and whose only sin in the whole matter is that it declines 
to turn its back on its own principles and methods in 
order to accept in their stead a system which their oppo- 
nents have picked up as a temporary expedient — an ex- 


pedient which admits unbelievers to teach belief, and ia 
as uncertain and variable in its content as it is precarious 
in its existence. 

Now let us turn to the other side. As to the attitude 
of the Nonconformists of fifty years ago, I will quote 
an authority the Nonconformists of to-day will acknow- 
ledge. Dr. Henry Dunckley, writing in the British 
Weekly of May 24th, 1889, says: "They (the Noncon- 
formists) laid it down as a principle that education must 
be religious, that some amount of dogmatic religious in- 
struction must be given to every child as a part of the 
daily school course. Then came in their other distinctive 
principle, that State aid could not be accepted for reli- 
gious teaching. They were thus cut off altogether from 
State assistance. But they went, or most of them did, 
still further. They held that it was no part of the duty 
of the State, or rather that it was an infraction of its 
duty, to provide for the education of its people." 

Similarly, coming to thirty years ago, we note Dr. 
Dale, of Birmingham, finding a, secular system implied 
in Nonconformist principles. For the last twenty years 
Dr. Robertson Nicoll tells us he has been convinced that 
the " secular solution " is the only just one. In Wales, 
where Nonconformity is relatively most powerful and 
earnest, was to be found the largest proportion of Board 
schools in which no religious) teaching was given. Soon 
after the Education Act of 1902 was passed, a United 
Conference and demonstration of North Wales Liberals 
and Nonconformists was held in Llandudno, at which a 
resolution in favour of a National System of Secular 
Fxlucation was passed. Many Liberationists find secular 
education involved in their Liberationism. As Mr. 
Beriah Evans said in recommending a secular policy to 
the local Congregational Union at Bangor : " We can- 
not protest against Established Religion to one class of 
the population, while supporting Established Religion 
to another class. If we order an Established 

Religion for the children in the schools, if we unite that 
Religion with the State through the County Councils, 
and if we endow it from local rates, what force is there 


in our right to disestablish and disendow the Church of 

All the great Nonconformist bodies have declared for 
passive resistance, of which the basal principle is that 
no one must be compelled to contribute towards reli- 
gious teaching to which he conscientiously objects. As 
there is no religious teaching imaginable which does not 
infringe the conscience of some, secular education is in- 
volved in passive resistance. 

A few months ago the President of the Baptist Union, 
in his official sermon, declared that it was '' not just to 
unbelievers " to compel them to pay towards religious 
teaching. At the 1907 meeting of the Free Church 
Council, the chairman, Dr. Rendel Harris, declared that 
if the Government proposed a plan of secular education, 
it would, in his opinion, be impossible to carry a vote 
against it in that assembly. When one ardent spirit 
wished a vote to be taken on the subject, the chairman, 
probably for tactical reasons, refused to put the motion 
to the meeting. It would be possible to multiply proofs 
indefinitely, but I will only add that the Northern 
Counties Education League, in their meeting at the Mid- 
land Hotel, Manchester, pronounced in favour of a 
secular system. 

It requires no small audacity on the part of religious 
bodies so infected with the principles of secular educa- 
tion in public day-schools to lay the charge of secularism 
at the door of those who have never wavered in their 
support of religious education. But on the point of auda- 
city the breaking strain of the Nonconformist Conscience 
has yet to be reached. Whence comes the Cowper- 
Templeism which they are now taking to their hearts? 
Were they the authors of the scheme? Nothing of the 
kind. The religious destitution of the children in Board 
schools did not stir them to action. The religious in- 
struction in those schools was mainly the work of Church- 
men. Dr. Clifford admitted (Times, January 8th, 1907) 
that Cowper-Templeism was introduced by Anglicans in 
1870 against the will of Free Churchmen. The Noncon- 
formist members of School Boards were mostly either 


indifferent or hostile to its introduction. In Manchester 
Canon Nunn took a leading part in devising the local 
plan, but only one of the six " Unsectarian " members 
supported him (the Rev. Dr. McKerrow). Mr. W. War- 
burton, a passive register of nearly forty years ago, poured 
contempt on the scheme. The chairman of the Board, 
Mr. Herbert Birley, was a staunch Churchman, while 
Dr. John Watts, a leading Unsectarian member of the 
Board, had at one time been a " Freethought " lecturer. 
It was in allusion to these facts that Mr. Warburton 
scornfully called the religious scheme of the Manchester 
School Board the " Birley-cum- Watts Mixture." What 
would that sturdy old Nonconformist have said if he had 
lived to see his brethren adopt as the Nonconformist Best 
what the Church had devised for schools other than her 
own as confessedly a subsidiary and inferior article? His 
amazement would have been greater still to see modern 
Nonconformists atempting to browbeat Churchmen and 
Roman Catholics into accepting this system as the one 
established and endowed form of religious teaching in 
the day schools of the land. He would possibly have 
turned the words of Mr Hollowell against him and his 
friends, and advised him and them to " try the superb 
tactics of honesty." We should not then see the sorry 
spectacle of Dr. Massie telling his co-religionists that he 
was at heart in favour of the Secular-Thorough, but that 
as to be loyal to principle would mean allowing Mr Bal- 
four to '' sweep the country," they must fall back on the 
'' Cowper-Temple-Tho rough." When once Dr. Massie and 
his friends have got Anglican and Roman Catholic teach- 
ing out of the way, with what zeal would they defend 
Cowper-Templeism from the assaults of its foes? In all 
likelihood with as much heart as the mother of the dead 
child in Solomon's judgment displayed for the living 
child she was prepared to see sacrificed to her false claim. 
No, the real choice for denominationalists is between the 
living child of distinctive religious teaching or the dead 
child of pure secularism. The half-alive, half-dead system 
of Cowper-Templeism, which contains within it the seeds 
of inevitable corruption and decay, presents no valid 


alternative. To destroy denominational teaching in order 
to set up universal Cowper-Templeism would be to erect 
a building when all practicable foundation was removed. 
The hour of its apparent triumph would sound the stroke 
of its doom. It would be the reverse of the old gladiatorial 
utterance, Morituri te salutamus. Rather as the cham- 
pions of Nonconformity appeared in the circus to hail the 
queen of their recent affection (the genius of Cowper- 
Templeism), would it be fitting for them to address her 
with the salute : Morituram te salutamus. 

Enough has, I hope, been said to show how ridiculously 
untrue to fact is the charge that if secular education is 
eventually adopted, the fault will lie with denomina- 
tionalists. These latter have fostered religious education 
in their own schools, and led no attack on religious 
education outside them. Their opponents, on the con- 
trary, have originated no plan of religious teaching, but 
violently attacked one which has held its ground for half 
a century. It is not for those who would fain strike a 
fatal blow to accuse others of murderous designs. The 
charge is as ridiculous as it is unjust. 

The Root of thb Nonconformist Difficulty. 
The leaders of the Free Churches tell us that they 
represent half the nation. How, then, does their record 
of voluntary service to the cause of day-school education 
compare with that of the other half? True, the Wesleyans 
at one time had a fair number of day schools under their 
control, but largely owing to the influence of the late 
Rev. H. P Hughes, a policy of school closing and school 
transfer has succeeded to a policy of school opening. 
The Roman Catholics alone, one of the poorest of reli- 
gious bodies in England, has a larger record of personal 
and financial effort to show than the churches of Dr. Clif- 
ford and Mr. Hollowell combined. As for the Church of 
England, the very magnitude of its sacrifices in the past 
in the cause of national education is almost regarded as 
the measure of its offence by Free Church critics. But 
outsiders judge more fairly, and the tale of solid work m 
the educational field which stands to the credit of the 


Anglican and Koman Catholic churches weighs strongly 
with the general public. 

But not only does the superior record of denomina- 
tionalists in the past accredit their side in the contro- 
versy and embarrass the other — there is the further and 
present fact that those two churches have at command 
a larger store of personal interest and personal devotion 
which can be turned at will into educational channels. 
Dr. Clifford, Mr. Hollo well, and Mr. Lidgett do not 
desire the " right of entry," for they and their friends have 
uo desire to do the inglorious and self-sacrificing work 
of personally giving religious instruction in the public 
day schools. 

The fact that Free Churchmen can fall back on no 
fund of educational zeal in their denominations at all 
comparable with that displayed by English Churchmen 
and Roman Catholics' in the past and ready to be evoked 
in the future, accounts for two noteworthy features in 
each and every scheme of national day school education 
which finds favour with the Free Church Council. The 
leaders of that body desire a soheme which (1) makes no 
financial demands on them over and above the compulsory 
exactions to which all must respond. All must contribute 
equally with themselves towards the one method they 
wish to impose on all, including many who conscien- 
tiously object to it; and which (2) makes no appeal to 
them for personal effort in the schools on their own part. 
Hence " the right of entry " does not commend itself to 
them. They know that Anglicans and Roman Catholics 
would as easily surpass them in assiduous personal service 
as they themselves outdo these rivals when educational 
zeal is measured by the fierceness of mere platform utter- 
ances on the subject. Whatever religious teaching or 
observance is ordained must on their plan be given by 
members of the teaching staff, but no account isi to be 
taken of their fitness for that particular task. The most 
important subject of the school programme is religiously 
to be left to the chapter of accidents, whilst the training 
colleges which have done most in the past, to raise the 
religious teaching in Council schools to whatever degree 


of efficiency it may have reached, are to be robbed of the 
very element wnich has tended most to thoroughness in 
that sphere. 

A Bungled Cash. 

Not fifty years of discussion and protest have sufficed 
to clarify the views of the Nonconformists and unite them 
on one common ground of action. Their principles and 
professions point to secular education, but the admitted 
unpopularity of that measure deters many of their num- 
ber from advocating it. Hence there id no common prin- 
ciple clearly ascertained, firmly held, and consistently 
stated. Their views are in a. state of flux. With regard 
to religious education, their aim is mainly negative. They 
are more concerned to thwart Anglicans and Roman 
Catholics than to promote any positive scheme of 
their own. To be negative and destructive rather than 
positive and constructive condemns them to controversial 
impotence. Free Churchmen ask that Parliament shall 
ignore the educational labours and sacrifices of half a 
century, and start again with a clean slate. But it is 
the habit of th« English people to proceed by way of evolu- 
tion rather than of revolution. If we were starting a new 
nation we should scarcely set up a royal family, but yet 
the vast majority of Englishmen would deem it madness 
to throw away the advantages of our historic monarchy. 
So, too, it would be a folly to cast into the melting-pot 
that denominational system of education under which 
so much good work has been done in the past, and which 
has won so high a place in the affections of the common 
people. The Nonconformist leaders have so bungled their 
case that in the coming struggle the mere statement of 
their battle-cries sounds like a pledge of their defeat. Just 
as in the anti-brewer agitation, Free Churchmen stood 
for class persecution and disability, and left it to their 
opponents to pick their old flag out of the gutter, with 
its inspiring motto — 'Equal civic rights for all, irrespec- 
tive of trade or class or creed, so on the education ques- 
tion the Free Church Council declares that parents have 
no rights in their children's education except as voters, 


leaving to the other side to maintain the right of parents, 
as parents, to control their children's religious education. 
Again, they cry out for a sort of educational Act of Uni- 
formity — one type of State-recognised school, and only 
one, must be tolerated, leaving their opponents to plead 
for that diversity and variety in education which are so 
conducive to the real welfare of the schools. Then, too, 
they propose to establish and endow the particular form of 
religious teaching which satisfies them, and that only, the 
whole expense to be borne by the State, including mil- 
lions who are not satisfied with it, thus leaving to the 
other side the battle-cry of equal rights for all in the 
nation's schools. Did ever any great party so completely 
turn its back on its principles and its past history and 
present to its opponents war-cries which are the sure pre- 
sage of victory? 

Speaking of State schools and State officials, Sir John 
Gorst says : — " It is enough to observe here that, as com- 
pared with the work of a private person like Dr. Bar- 
nardo, its education of the children in its charge has 
proved a lamentable failure, and that the chief causie of 
this failure is 1 the absence, perhaps unavoidable, from 
State institutions of that special individual love for each 
child which Nature implants in a mother. This is the 
most powerful and essential influence that can be brought 
to bear upon a child, and free education and free feeding 
tend to diminish, if not to obliterate it." The proposals 
of Free. Churchmen in the matter of public education tend 
to augment the power of the State, with its army of 
officials. Years ago, thousands of men and women, not 
inspectors, interested themselves in elementary education, 
but the number is diminishing daily, and threatens to 
vanish. As Canon Richardson says: "No one but the 
bona-fide educationist knows what this loss is to real 
heart-training. Education is far deeper than book-work 
or official direction." 

We have had nearly forty years of Board schools, with 
a very large incidental expenditure of public money. Are 
the moral and intellectual results satisfactory? We know 
they are not. The young are more frivolous and preco- 


cious than thoge of a previous generation. Parents are 
more negligent of their children. Home life is neglected. 
The working man talks more of his rights as against the 
State than of his duties to the State. Politicians vie 
with each other in burning incense at the shrine of 
Demos. Labour has its courtiers and sycophants to^-day 
just as king and aristocracy had in past times. Mr. 
Birrell laments a " slackening in the moral fibre " of the 
nation. Dr. Gladden warns us that in America democ- 
racy has failed to check the tendencies which are develop- 
ing in this country '' Instead of its being true that demo- 
cracy will transfigure egoism, we have found that no form 
of society can march hell-ward faster than a democracy 
under the banner of unbridled enthusiasm." General 
Booth tells us to our shame that " there are no children 
in Japan who go to school without breakfast, and you 
never see children with bare feet and not decently dressed, 
or a woman who is not respectably covered." How 
different in England ! 

In view of facts like these, can we say that the present 

is the time when the nation can afford to augment the 

v tendency we 'deplore by lessening the forces that tell for 

spirituality, for individuality, and reasonable diversity? 



The National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches 
may perhaps be called at once the product and the organ 
af the Nonconformist conscience. This influential body 
has only existed about sixteen years. It will be both in- 
teresting and enlightening to glance at the early history 
jf the movement. The real nature of the organisation is 
=ven more apparent in the story of its formation than 
in the record of its deeds when formed. I have already 
referred in a general way to the Free Church Council and 
the degree of its representative character, but it ia now 
time to come to closer grips with the question. Arith- 
metic, we know, will not budge. Let us then bring the 
matter to the test of fact and figures. 

In the preface to the Free Church Year Book for 1896 
ive are told that " the first Congress, held in March, 1892, 
svas a congress pure and simple ; it consisted of those 
individuals who had accepted an invitation to assemble, 
lone were present as elected representatives." Each ses- 
sion of this first Congress at Manchester had, we are told, 
i separate chairman, chosen by the committee which had 
:alled the Congress together. It is this committee, 
)bviously self-appointed, which is the ultimate fact in 
he origin of the body. 

At the Leeds Congress (March, 1894) there were very 
'ew representatives present from one or two denomina- 
.ions only, the assembly consisting in the main of per- 
sonal members (i.e., individuals who had .accepted the 
nvitation of the convening committee), and it had no 
permanent presiding officer. At this Congress a resolu- 
ion was passed indicating county federations, together 
tfith united councils of churches in the larger towns, aa 
:he best basis on which to constitute a National Repre- 
lentative Congress. 

The Birmingham Congress (March, 1895) was more re- 
iresentative. Dr. Berry, of Wolverhampton, had been 
jlected president, two county federations and 68 councils 


in towns were represented, and the feeling was strong 
that the time had come to make the change from an indi- 
vidually summoned congress to a permanent Council. 
The committee was directed to prepare a draft consti- 
tution and bring it up at the Nottingham meeting in 
1896. At this gathering the Congress was constituted 
a Council. 

Its Representative Claim. 

There then existed 209 local Councils, as against 897 
ten years later. In a petition addressed (March, 1896) 
to her late Majesty against a proposed regulation for the 
Island of Guernsey, the opening sentence reads : " Your 
petitioners represent Two hundred local Councils in various 
towns and districts of England, and more than a million 
communicants and accredited members of churches." 

Dividing: the million communicants among 200 local 
councils gives an average of 5,000' communicants for each 
local council, which, as Euclid says, is absurd. The 
Free Church Year Book for 1906 gives the total number 
of communicants of the entire Free Churches of England 
a^s 2,136,079. *If the 209 local councils of 1896 repre- 
sented one million communicants, the 897 local councils 
of 1906 ought to represent nine millions of communicants, 
that is, more than four times the total number of all the 
adherents of all the Free Churches in the land. Which, 
again, is absurd. 

A still more astounding claim was made at the same 
meeting bv the president, the Rev. H. Price Hughes, 
M.A. He 'is reported (page 145) as saying that "as far 
as their calculations went, the representatives there that 
day represented at least seven millions of Christians.' 
So that in 1896, in the days of its feebleness, the Free 
Church Council already represented between three and 
four times the total number of communicants in all the 
Free Churches thev aspired one day to represent. Argu- 
ing proportionatelv, the number of Christians represented 
ten years later (when the local councils had increased more 
than fourfold) ought to have been thirty millions; wnicn 
once more i» absurd. 


The estimates of the official Year Book have not even 
the quality of consistency in error. The magnifying glass 
through which the president viewed the Free Church 
figures was seven times more powerful than that employed 
by the secretary, the Eev. Thos. Law, for on page 127 
the latter is reported as saying that in England and Wales 
the local councils associated with them registered, in round 
figures, a membership of about a million. He then gives 
a list of the "denominations included,'' among which he 
names " Methodists of all sections." Ten years later, after 
much progress in the meantime, the Rev. S. Chadwick 
asks his fellow Wesleyans why they " hold aloof." 

Coming to claims of representative character expressed 
in more general terms, and which as such do not so readily 
lend themselves to the test of arithmetic, we find (page 37) 
the president declaring from the chair : " We represent 
at this moment a majority of the English people who 
attend places of worship and take a real interest in Chris- 
tianity." This could only be true if (1) Anglicans and 
Roman Catholics together were a minority of the worship- 
ping public in England ; and also (2) the Congress which 
spoke for only 209 local councils represented the whole of 
Christian England outside those two churches. Of these 
the former is doubtful, the latter is demonstrably false. 
For arrogance of assumption the case is not quite so out- 
rageous as that of the three tailors of Tooley Street with 
their " We, the people of England," but it goes some con- 
siderable distance in their direction. 

On the same page the flight of Mr. Hughes's imagina- 
tion carries him beyond the seasi. He -says : "Represent- 
ing a majority of the people at home, we represent an 
immense majority in the British Empire, and an over- 
whelming majority in the English-speaking world." 

The President said (page 27) : '' Our desire is not to 
collect a mere mass meeting of enthusiastic adherents or 
partisans', but to bring together a carefully-selected, re- 
presentative, and responsible assembly to deliberate 
seriously, and also to express the convictions of the mil- 
lions of Christians whom we practically represent." The 
qualifying adverb " practically " eeems to suggest that 


even Mr. Hughes had a sort of sub-conscious sense of the 
extravagance of his claims. 

On page 24 he is reported as saying that " this national 
gathering has already become an Ecclesiastical Parlia- 
ment of the Evangelical Free Churches of England and 
Wales." He also speaks of the " fathers and confessors 
and martyrs of the -world-wide churches we represent." 

Mr. Hughes (pages 31-3) quotes with approval the defi- 
nition of the Catholic Church given by St. Ignatius in his 
letter to the Smyrnaeans : " Wherever Christ Jesus may 
be, there is the Catholic Church," and proceeds! : " Agree- 
ing with that venerable Apostolic Father, taking our 
stand upon that truly Scriptural definition, we look around 
us, and find that the Catholic Church in this country is 
divided into three great groups- — the Roman Catholics, the 
Anglican Catholics, and the Scriptural Catholics. Each 
of these three groups has its own distinctive form of 
vinity. The Roman Catholics are one in the Pope and in 
nothing else. We come now to the Anglican 

Catholics. In what sense are they one? Con- 

templating the facts dispassionately and historically, it 
is impossible to deny that the Anglican Church is one in 
the Crown, and in nothing else. When the Anglican 

Church is disestablished here, as in Ireland, it will be no 
longer one in the Crown, but one in the Episcopate. I 
come now to Scriptural Catholics, the group which we 
represent. We are not one in the Pope. We are not 
one in the Crown. But we are one in Christ. The Roman 
Catholic stands for the supremacy of the Pope, the Angli- 
can Catholic for the supremacy of the Crown, and the 
Scriptural Catholics for the supremacy of the Christ. That 
is our point of union, and we realise it more and more." 

Mr. Percy Bunting assured the Council that they 
possessed the note of authority. '' It was natural," he 
said, " for the young to look for some authority." He 
rather hazily defined authority (page 136) as "a rein- 
forcement of the early convictions which came from the 
concurrence of many," as if the power to stand were de- 
rived from the numbers of those who leaned against one 
another. He went on to say that " authority was, in their 


view, the totality of Christian experience. They 

were trying to make that great movement which would 
in a proper sense have authority — an authority upon which 
they could lean. There they represented the 

power of the doctrine of the Christian Church straight in 
one line through Apostles and martyrs. Let them beware 
how they slighted the authority of the Church of their 
generation, and to those who appealed to them they could 
present an authority on which they might rest." If the 
claim thus advanced on behalf of the Free Church Council 
holds good, it ought to supersede that of the separate 
denominations, which it is not held to do. I have already 
shown that the figures quoted by them in their claims 
of numerical representation are absurdly inflated, and 
will not bear a moment's examination. Perhaps some of 
my readers may take leave to correct in their own minds 
the exaggerated claims advanced by Messrs. Hughes and 
Bunting. Obviously one need not go outside the ranks 
of the Free Churches to find Popes, both clerical and lay. 
In the two utterances just quoted the lay Pope runs the 
clerical Pope a very hard race in extravagance and arro- 
gance of claim. 

It is hard to see how certain groups of certain Free 
Churches coming together can claim the authority of a 
church in their collective capacity, when the separate 
churches of which these groups continue to form a part 
maintain their distinct existence. Mr. Bunting himself 
is both a member of the " Wesleyan Methodist Church " 
and of the Free Church Council. Does he indulge in the 
luxury of being a member of two churches, both possess- 
ing authority? "Writing in 1904 (Introduction to Official 
Handbook of the Annual Meeting of the National Free 
Church Council at Newcastle), Mr. Bunting suggests 
(page 9) a less exalted motive as having originated that 
l>o<ly. " The time therefore seemed ripe for feeling the 
way for a more active co-operation of the Free Churches, 
and while the Anglican Establishment was necessarily 
left out of consideration, the very predominance and 
separateness of that church seemed to make it the more 
important for the Free Churches to come together " From 


these words it seems that the Free Church Council was 
formed partly at least as a counterpoise to the Established 
Church rather than from a purely spiritual impulse. 

Is It a Caucus? 

Let us turn now from our examination of its repre- 
sentative character on the numerical and spiritual sides 
to a study of its organisation. Beginning de novo, the 
Council will in its framework objectify its spirit. Free- 
dom will be the note of this organisation of the Free 
Churches. All trace of an oligarchical spirit will be 
absent from the chosen home of this spiritual democracy. 
Let us see. 

Speaking at the Birmingham meeting of the Free 
Church National Council in 1906, Mr. Stead, in what waS 
intended as a complimentary reference, called the general 
secretary, the Rev. Thomas Law, the " Schnadhorst " of 
the movement. Mr. Law reproduced the remark in his 
official report, so that we may take him as accepting the 
view of Mr Stead. Now, as everybody knows, Mr. 
Schnadhorst was ±he central wirepuller of a great political 
caucus. Does Mr. Law consider that he is the central 
wirepuller of another great caucus — call it religio-political 
or politico-religious as you please? We shall find Mr. 
Stead's illuminating word not unhelpful in our study of 
the Free Church Council organisation. 

In examining the origins of that body one feels that 
at the back of it all, in the dark as it were, are what 
Mr. Hughes calls " the promoters of that Congress." This 
is the potent and masterful group which appears to deter- 
mine all the overt movements which take place. It was 
they who invited the first Congress to Manchester in 1892, 
and although a representative element was gradually de- 
veloped, it was not until the Nottingham meeting in 1896 
that a constitution was drawn up. It is worth noting 
that at the time Mr. Hughes was claiming that the move- 
ment represented at least seven million Christians, not 
a single free election of the general committee had been 
permitted by the ruling group. On page 212 we have 
the record of the election of officers for the ensuing year 


other than the president and the organising secretary. 
Here follows a list of thirty members — fifteen ministers 
and fifteen laymen. These names were presented to the 
meeting en bloc, and accepted by it, practically at the 
dictation of the committee. The President said (page 213) 
" he would point out that this was the last time the com- 
mittee would ever be elected in that way. Under the new 
constitution the committee would be submitted to the 
ballot, and if any member of the Council wished to add 
any additional names, he would have the opportunity of 
doing so." The new constitution referred to had been 
passed the previous day. It was therefore in force, but 
suffered suspension for a year in its most important feature 
at the will of the dominant group whom Mr. Hughes 
styled the " promoters of that Congress." Thus for five 
years, from 1892 to 1897, there was no free election in 
the assembly of the Free Churches. It is worth noting 
that although the ratio of laymen to ministers in their 
own statistics was as 1 220' to one, yet the number of 
ministers elected was to equal that of laymen. The cloven 
foot of " clericalism " appears here. Moreover, these 
thirty members were empowered to select by co-optation 
twenty additional members — ten ministers and ten lay- 
men. Co-optation suggests unwillingness to face the 
results of a free election. It is a caucus method, and the 
insistence on half the supplementary members being clerics 
points to a clerical caucus. The whole method seems 
most ingeniously devised to keep all power in the hands 
of a ruling clique. The Nonconformist bench of bishops 
in the Free Church Council attacks " clericalism," and 
exemplifies it. 

In 1906, in addition to the twenty-five ministers and 
twenty-five laymen chosen on the Council, partly by ballot 
and partly by co-optation, there were as past presidents, 
treasurers, etc., ten ministers and three laymen, giving 
a decided preponderance of ministers over laymen. In 
this Nonconformist House of Lords the spiritual peers out- 
number the temporal peers. The three laymen just re- 
ferred to were the treasurers of the Council, to whom 
the clerics generouKly remitted all financial responsibility 


Perhaps there is nothing in the whole transaction which 
more stamps the procedure as essentially of a caucus char- 
acter than the fact that when the new constitution was 
voted at Nottingham, the President said that he had great 
pleasure in moving the adoption of that constitution era 
bloc. The manner in which the constitution was bustled 
and hustled through was most significant of the formal 
nature of the business. The passage and discussion of the 
new constitution were presented on a Wednesday after- 
noon, sandwiched between the Secretary's report on the 
organisation and an important resolution on Education 
to be introduced by Mr. Hollowell. The Secretary gave the 
assembly a pretty broad hint that not much discussion 
was possible or desirable. The official report says (page 
142) : '' The Rev Thos. Law said it was now past four 
o'clock, and they had the important education resolution 
before them. There ought to be some time for something 
in the way of discussion on this question ; therefore he 
would content himself by formally seconding the resolu- 
tion." The phrase " some time for something in the way 
of discussion " is exceedingly siuggestive. Mr. Hollowell, 
with" his resolution on the education question, must not 
be kept long waiting over such a trifle as what ought to 
be the Magna Charta of the Council! Nor, indeed, was 
he, for no discussion worthy of the name took place. One 
gentleman uttered a mild protest against " the great power 
vested in the Committee," and pointed out that under the 
new constitution " it was just possible that most important 
matters misrht be settled h\ half a dozen gentlemen." But 
he received little encouragement, and after a single 
amendment on a single paragraph of a single clause had 
been put forward and rejected, the original motion adopt- 
ing the constitution " was carried unanimously," and the 
way was clear for Mr. Hollowell to demonstrate how 
absolutely free is the Council's platform from all trace 
of political and sectarian rancour. 

A Contradiction. 
On page 137 the President, Mr. Hughes, is reported as 
saying that " they were not going to consider for the first 


time their constitution a~d certain fundamental doctrinal 
and ecclesiastical principles. These were determined before 
they met in Manchester, and they represented the senti- 
ments of many churches that came together on that occa- 
sion." Now, as the Manchester meeting was the first ever 
held, we have here the strange admission that the con- 
stitution had been determined before any public meeting 
whatever had been held in connection with the movement. 
In other words, a handful of self-appointed men (" the 
promoters of that Congress!," as Mr. Hughes elsewhere 
called them) went to the first Congress with its future 
constitution in their pockets. This is caucus work and 
clericalism in sweet combination. When Mr. Hughes 
went on to say that " many churches came together on 
that occasion," he speaks in flat contradiction of the 
words of Dr. Mackennal, who states in the preface to 
the Year Book for 1896: "The first Congress, held in 
Manchester in 1892, was a Congress pure and simple; it 
consisted of those who had accepted an invitation to 
assemble; none were present as elected representatives." 
Thus we have Mr. Hughes stating that at Manchester 
churches came together, while Dr. Mackennal says that 
only individuals as individuals met there. The one im- 
plies a representative character, which the other expressly 
denies. Only the following year did the first nucleus of 
representation emerge. In Dr. Mackennal's words : 
" When they met in Manchester it was actually proposed 
at one time that they should move no resolution at all, 
so little responsibility did they feel entitled to assume 
as representing anybody but themselves. It was 

determined that the next Congress should be summoned on 
somewhat of u representative basis." 

One of the most interesting (and I might add amusing) 
passages in the Tear Book for 1896 is that in which Mr. 
Hughes, as president, explains away the somewhat unde- 
mocratic fact that the right of nominating his successor 
was retained in the hands of the president himself. "They 
were," he said, " a democratic assembly, and somebody 
might hastily imagine that that might involve the neces- 
sity of submitting the name of the presiding officer to 


the ballot. He wanted to explain how absolutely impos- 
sible that was. The ballot was not an idol that they fell 
down and worshipped. It was a painful necessity arising 
from the existence of sin in the world. In any case it 
was only a means to an end. The object was to get the 
most capable man. Not one of the responsible represen- 
tatives of the churches whom, in the future, they would 
wish to see in the chair of a movement like that would 
ever consent to have their claims canvassed in the pre- 
sence of the reporters, or to be pitted against one another 
in the election of President. There was no alternative 
in a dignified assembly to leaving it practically to the 
committee.'' After some further remarks, Mr. Hughes 
nominated his successor, and in the words of the official 
report, " asked the Council to signify its assent to the 
nomination which he made on behalf of a unanimous com- 
mittee by rising.'' The Council did as requested, the Pre- 
sident remarking: " I thank you." It is not everywhere 
that autocratic leaders find such docile followers 1 . 

Having thus seen how the nomination to the Presi- 
dential chair is confined to the ruling group, we next note 
that the treasurers and secretaries are to be elected by the 
Annual Council on the nomination of the Executive Com- 
mittee. Another regulation which seems well calculated 
to keep the directing power in the hands of the old 
party leaders reads! : " The Executive Committee shall 
be elected by ballot from persons nominated by the Execu- 
tive Committee of the previous year, or by not less than 
three representative members' of the Council. Thus the 
consentient action of at least three members is required 
before a single candidate can be nominated to compete 
with the nominees of the old committee. Even the right 
of free disteussion in the Annual Council is held subject 
to the will of the Executive Committee. The rule under 
this head reads : " Suggested constitutional amendments 
and all notices of motion must be approved by the Execu- 
tive Committee as suitable for discussion before they can 
be presented to the Annual Council." At the Council for 
1907, Dr. Rendel Harris, as 1 president, refused to allow 
a vote to be taken on a proposal for secular education. 
He had previously declared that if the Government pro- 


posed a system of purely secular education it would, in 
his opinion, be impossible to carry a vote in its favour 
in that gathering. However that may be, the free expres- 
sion of opinion was remorselessly gagged in an assembly of 
Free Churchmen. 

An Oligarchy. 

We have shown to how large an extent the ministerial 
caste prevails in the Executive Committee. Where we 
should antecedently have expected the rights of the laity 
to be fully admitted, free election to be proclaimed, and 
free discussion to be encouraged, we find a group of clerics 
assuming authority in the first instance, and then hedging 
round their power with safeguard after safeguard as if 
to secure that in no eventuality should it pass out of their 
hands — presenting executive committees for five years in 
succession, to be accepted en bloc — putting through a new 
constitution on the same plan, employing in their own 
constitution that principle of co-optation which they 
condemn in the sphere of elementary education adminis- 
tration and reserving to the Central Council the power to 
stifle discussion on any subject the discussion of which 
may be deemed inconvenient to the powers that be. Sir 
Conrpton Ricketts, M.P., recently stated from the chair 
of the Congregational Union that " Congregational prin- 
ciples are democratic, but they are often concealed under 
oligarchic practices." The remark might with equal jus- 
tice be extended to the Free Church Council. Under its 
wing a handful of men direct an organisation which is sup- 
posed to represent half of Christian England. Sometimes 
the oligarchy crystallises for the moment into an autoc- 
racy, and we have Dr. Clifford speaking with all f he 
authority of a Free Church Pontiff and, whilst railing at 
the bishops, seeking to exercise a power to which they 
would never venture to aspire. 

A system under which a few ministerial leaders engross 
almost the whole platform is a striking anomaly in a pro- 
fessedly democratic body. Now and again two or three 
ministers from the undistinguished crowd are allowed a 
platform opportunity, and if they respond with ability 


they we hailed as men "discovered," and take their place 
among the grea"t men of the Council whose names are 
a sure " draw " to a Free Church audience. The tendency 
of the Free Churches to man-worship of this kind was 
noted by Dr. Horton at the close of his year of office as 
president in 1906. He says: "Certain names are apt 
to be used as baits to attract great audiences, and reli- 
ance is placed on these magnetic personalities, instead 
of on the truth of the cause and on the sufficiency of God. 
Where there is one of the few popular names there is a 
crowd. The cause, the principle, God Himself, cannot be 
trusted, unless a popular name is on the platform. In 
the absence of such a name, the people do not come, 
and the tendency to make men who have not 
the popular gift feel unappreciated, or even depreciated, 
is a serious loss to the churches. A great crowd 

drawn to hear a popular speaker has 1 no more lasting 
significance than a great crowd drawn to hear Paderewski 
or Sarah Bernhardt. That we are losing sight of this, and 
making our Free Church Council work turn on a broken 
pivot, is my one anxiety after my year's experience." 
Wise and faithful words, but will they be heeded? 


The evolution of the Free Church Catechism furnishes 
yet another example of the loose ideas of representation 
which prevail in Free Church Council circles. In 1896, 
the General Committee of the Free Church Council under- 
took the preparation of a new Catechism. In the explana- 
tory note prefixed to this Catechism, we are told that the 
Rev. Principal Dykes, D.D., was requested to compile a 
Draft Catechism, and a preliminary committee, " repre- 
senting the associated churches," was appointed to revise 
that draft in consultation with Dr. Dykes. In what way 
did the preliminary committee " represent the associated 
churches " 1 The bare fact is that ten persons were selected 
by the Council at their pleasure, and it was then assumed 
that they represented the churches of which they were 
individually members. Thus Mr. Hughes in his sole person 
spoke for the Wesleyan body. His representative char- 
acter was, of course, a pure assumption. When the main 
work of compiling the Catechism was done, ten more 
members were added to the ten of the original committee 
to make a final revision of the work. And it is for a 
catechism framed in this personal and unrepresentative 
fashion that Mr. Hughes, the " Chairman and convener " 
of the Catechism Committee, claims that "the theologians 
who have prepared this Catechism represent, directly or 
indirectly, the beliefs of not less, and probably many more, 
than sixty millions of avowed Christians in all parts of 
the world." Never did Mr. Hughes give a more remark- 
able specimen of that megalomania from which he and his 
colleagues of the Free Church Council habitually suffered. 

A Powerful Baptist Element. 

We all know that it is a Baptist minister, Dr. Clifford, 
who is generally regarded as the most influential member 
of the Free Church National Council. It was to him that 
a present of £6,000 was 1 recently made. It is a Baptist, 
the Rev. F B. Meyer, who has been appointed the first 


ministerial agent to visit the various federations and local 
councils on behalf of the Central Council, and in the pre- 
liminary committee appointed to prepare the new cate- 
chism three out of the members were Baptists, no other 
religious body being so largely represented. The Con- 
gregationalism, Presbyterians, and Primitive Methodists 
had two members each, the Wesleyan Methodists only one. 
As Baptists only recognise the immersion of adult be- 
lievers, whilst nearly all the other dissenting bodies prac- 
tise infant baptism, I was curious to see how such diver- 
gent views were reconciled in the Free Church Catechism, 
especially as Mr. Hughes, the chairman and convener, 
states in a prefatory note that '' every question and every 
answer in this Catechism has been finally adopted without 
a dissentient vote." On turning to page 21 we find the 
following : — 

Question : What is the visible sign in the sacrament 

of baptism? 
Answer : Water, wherein the person is baptized into 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit. 
Here the word wherein dearly points to immersion, and 
excludes sprinkling or pouring. If these latter modes were 
intended to be recognised, we should rather expect the 
phrase, " wherewith the person is baptized." 

The next question and answer point in the same direc- 
tion : — ■ 

Question: What inward benefits does this signify? 
Answer : The washing away of sin and the new birth 
wrought by the Holy Spirit in all who repent and 
As unconscious babes cannot possibly repent or believe, 
and the inward benefits of baptism are in the above answer 
apparently limited to those who do repent and believe, 
infant baptism is unrecognised, if not implicitly con- 
demned. The baptism of children becomes a meaningless 
rite, and the lambs of Christ's flock are left to the uncove- 
nanted mercies. 

It is plain, then, that the view of baptism taken in the 
Free Church Catechism involves a complete surrender to 


the Baptist position on the part of the Paedobaptists. 
Where is the representative character of the Catechism on 
this point? To misrepresent is not to represent. Baptists 
do not compose one-fourth of the Christians for whom the 
Council professes to speak, yet the view on baptism held 
by a minority over-rides the view held by the great majo- 
rity. The three Baptist members of the original committee 
appointed to draft the Catechism are to be congratulated 
on the excellent denominational use they made of the over- 
representation of their body on that committee. Of courso 
we know that the question of baptism is primary for Bap- 
tists. To it they attach so much importance as to make 
it a ground of ecclesiastical separation from churches with 
which in belief and church order they are in general agree- 
ment. They have a perfect right to publish their charac- 
teristic views and express them in catechetical or other 
form, but they have no right to impose them on a body 
which as a whole rejects them. A sectional view should 
not be paraded as the general view Dr. Rendel Harris, 
President of the Council for 1907-8, is a member of the 
Society of Friends, and asi such rejects both sacraments. 
The Free Church Catechism misrepresents the views of 
an ex-president of the Free Church Council. 

Growth of the Political Element. 

Where the personnel of the leaders and members is so 
largely of one political colour that any of their meetings 
might be converted from a professed Free Church Council 
meeting into a Liberationist gathering or a demonstration 
in favour of passive resistance, or a Liberal convention, 
and that with scarcely the change of a man, it is inevitable 
that the political side should assert itself more and more. 
And as political activity is more concrete, more showy, 
more immediately effective in appearance than deeper 
spiritual work, the tendency is for the lean kine of partisan 
activity to swallow up the fat kine of spiritual culture. In 
the report for 1896 it is stuted (page 129) that after an 
united mission of the Free Churches in Birmingham, a 
leading; minister said : " Now that we have come together 
for spiritual work, we shall be prepared for any united 


effort for the glory of God and the salvation of man." 
Under such specious pleas as this the bridge is built by 
which the combined Free Churches pass from united 
'' spiritual work " to common political and other activities 
which are confessedly outside spiritual work, but which 
are construed to be religious in character by the plausible 
device of blurring the distinction between religious and 
secular work. A Wesleyan minister, writing in the 
Methodist Recorder of March 14th, 1907, states that a 
superintendent minister in London was asked to join a 
Free Church Local Council. He found that it could dis- 
cuss any subject, political or otherwise, if a three-fourths 
majority agreed. On such a movable basis he declined to 
join the council. 

As far back as 1903 the National Council decided to 
raise a fund for a Parliamentary Election Campaign. What 
was called a Motor Campaign, in which Dr. Clifford and 
other leaders took part, was included in this election cam- 
paign. From that time the partisan character of the Free 
Church Council has become more and more open and un- 
disguised. Extreme men like Dr. Clifford and Mr. Hollo- 
well have come more to the front. Even Mr. Meyer, one 
of the most spiritually-minded of the leaders, is using 
his position as a sort of organising agent of the Council 
to advocate the disestablishment of the Church and the 
abolition of the House of Lords. He mentioned that the 
'' existence " of that House was an objectionable relic of 
feudalism, so that Mr. Meyer is by his public utterances 
committing the Council to political courses so extreme as 
to be regarded even by many Liberals as revolutionary. 
'' To end the House of Lords " is also the aim of the Rev. 
Silas Hocking, who, speaking at Leeds before the National 
Council in 1907, said: — "They would agree that few of 
the reforms specified were likely to be carried out unless 
they could end the House of Lords. He characterised that 
Chamber as being composed of antediluvian fossils, who 
breathed an atmosphere in which freedom could not live. 
It was a House replenished largely by plutocrats of the 
drink ring and of the gutter Press; a House buttressed 
by the heads of the Established Church — the Bench of 


Bishops — that had remained true to its predatory in- 
stincts, and to its hatred of social reform." Was ever such 
language heard outside of a pot-house? And it is the 
National Council of the Free Churches that lends its plat- 
form for these ravings, which excite the disgust of all 
fair-minded men. 

Anti- Anglican Bias. 

When the Anglo-French understanding became a fact 
the German press complained that the apparently defen- 
sive combination had an aggressive side in relation to 
their own country. However that may be, there can be 
no doubt that the " alliance of the Free Churches " has an 
edge directed against the Church of England. I will cite 
a few evidences of this feeling from the first official record 
of the Council's transactions, that for the year 1896. Mr. 
E. W. Perks, M.P. , speaking of Churchmen, said "he 
dared say some of them were glad enough when Noncon- 
formists had gone to their last reward." The Rev, J. H. 
Hollowell, speaking on the education question said (page 
149) : " The supreme aim of the Anglican system was 
not to give a broad moral, and intellectual education. 
The supreme aim was to teach that the Nonconformist 
churches were no churches, that their ministers were no 
ministers, that their ordinances were impertinent and 
irregular, that their dearest fellowship was a, schism, and 
that the State Church was the only authorised society of 
God's people." The deliverance from which these words 
are extracted was described by Mr. Hughes as '' a most 
dignified and statesmanlike speech." The platform and 
machinery of the Free Church Council are used by Mr. 
Hollowell to propagate this irreconcilable attitude in educa- 
tion which more than anything else has prevented, and 
still prevents, a settlement of the question on reasonable 
lines. The secretary's report statesi (page 131) that "the 
machinery having been prepared is now being well used by 
the Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell and others." This was in 1896, 
we are now in 1908. Where has this harsh, malicious, and 
uncompromising spirit landed Free Churchmen? 

Skipping ten years and coming to the report for 1906, 


we find the old bitter spirit still surviving. Mr. W. T. 
Stead is reported as saying (page 32) that "his greatest 
objection to the Church of England was not its establish- 
ment, but that it was not a national church. It had not 
a glimmer of an idea of its duties to the nation." He 
added, with a characteristic personal touch, that the 
Bishop of Birmingham had lost a great opportunity when 
he omitted to invite the National Council to the Cathedral 
for a great " Te Deum." 

In his presidential address, to his honour be it said, the 
Rev. J. Scott Lidgett had put in a plea for Christian con- 
ciliation and for " a large spirit of patience and forbearance 
in securing a settlement of the education controversy." 

The Rev. F B. Meyer also did himself credit by mak- 
ing the admission that " a large body of Churchmen, eccle- 
siastics, bishops, and others have had an exalted ideal of 
education, and have sought to carry it out with magna- 
nimity and earnestness for our country's welfare. We all 
of us have perhaps said more than was consistent with 
Christian charity now and again, about the sectarian 
aspect of their care for education." But four other 
speakers referred to the president's plea in a far different 
spirit. Dr. Clifford said : '' "We are told to be magnani- 
mous! We have no difficulty in that. Free Churchmen 
have been trained in magnanimity. Suffering is the badge 
of all our tribe." He then, with unconscious self-revela- 
tion, went on to show that his idea of magnanimity to 
an opponent was to make no concession to his views, but 
to force your own on him without modification. His 
words were : " We will not accept conclusions which are 
compromises." The Clifford idea of magnanimity is get- 
ting all your own way. 

Mr. W- Howell Davies, M.P., said that "they as Free 
Churchmen were magnanimous. Therein was their danger." 
Mr. Davies proceeded frankly to assume the political aspect 
of the Council by saying " He hoped the influence of that 
great gathering would do very much to strengthen the 
Government party in the House of Commons and to 
strengthen the Government itself." 

Mr. Hollowell resented the President's exhortation. 


" It was easy," he said, '' to cultivate a reputation for 
magnanimity among the oppressors, but it was far better 
to win the gratitude of the oppressed. He saw 

no reason why they should be lectured about moderation." 
It was reserved for the Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon to give 
the finishing touch in the following words : " They must 
not sail under false colours. They wanted to be courteous, 
but they must not be mealy-mouthed. They must make it 
clear what Nonconformity meant, and Nonconformity had 
always meant Disestablishment. To compromise principles 
which they held in trust was one aspect of the sin against 
the Holy Ghost." 

Some Forms op Persecution Employed bt Free Churchmen. 

" Fair and sound dealing," says Bacon, " is the glory of 
a man." We might add that it is equally the glory of a 
party or of a cause, just as unfair dealing is the disgrace 
of those who resort to it. My complaint against Free 
Churchmen is that they have not dealt out justice to 
their opponents. 

After the Education Bill of 1902 had passed through 
the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour astonished Mr. Lloyd 
George by warmly congratulating him on the high ability 
he had displayed in his criticism of the measure. He 
closed his remarks with the statement that Mr. Lloyd 
George had displayed all the qualities of a great Parlia- 
mentarian. This generous tribute to an opponent evi- 
dently made a great impression on the Welsh leader, for 
even in the course of his campaign against the Act he 
found time to say that " this measure, he was glad to 
say, had been under the charge of one of the most chival- 
rous leaders the House of Commons had ever seen." Would 
that the spirit herein displayed were the rule and not the 
exception. The customary attitude of the Free Church 
Council is more accurately reproduced by Dr. Aked, who 
linked in close association the name of the devil with that 
of Mr. Balfour, or by Dr. Clifford, when he saved himself 
the necessity of answering Mr. Balfour's reasoned letter 
in vindication of the Act by declaring it to b© " hollow and 
insincere." Religious leaders who adopt such irreligious 


methods are obviously possessed by the very spirit of per- 
secution. Few Parliamentary measures have been more 
misrepresented than the Education Act of 1902. I hap- 
pened to be at Ilkley during the General Election of 1906, 
and saw a placard which represented John Bull standing 
before the entrance to a denominational school, on the 
door of which was a notice, " For head and assistant 
teacherships in this school no Nonconformist need apply." 
This placard was one of many thousands distributed from 
headquarters in London by a committee of which Mr. 
Birrell was the chairman. Those who saw the placard 
naturally concluded that the effect of Mr. Balfour's Act 
was to close doors of admission to teacherships which had 
previously been open, whereas the fact was that it opened 
the vast majority of those which had been closed, and 
closed none that had been open. The truth of the matter 
emerged when Dr. Macnamara, in an interview with a 
representative of the " Tribune " in 1906, said, in refer- 
ence to a certain proposed amendment of Mr. BirreU's bill : 
" It would no doubt free something like 14,000 head 
teachers from religious tests, but it would mean a very 
effective religiftus test upon five or six times as many 
assistant teachers of one sort or another. And, curiously 
enough, it would reimpose upon those teachers the very 
test, which the Balfour Act of 1902 practically removed." 
Misrepresentation of the kind herein exposed is not a legi- 
timate weapon of controversy. A Parliamentary majority 
got by such means is obtained by false pretences. It is a 
form of persecution to falsely accuse another of persecution. 
I have already shown that individual passive resisters 
have displayed an intolerant spirit, and that the principle 
on which the movement is based excludes the possibility 
of religious education being given in State-aided schools, 
but there is yet another aspect in which it shows as a per- 
secuting force. By taking the initiative in passive resist- 
ance its advocates took an unfair advantage of their oppo- 
nents by exploiting the sympathy of the public which 
went out almost unquestioningly to those who posed before 
them in the attitude of martyrs to religious conviction. 
If the intolerance of Mr. McKenna's bill should unhappily 


drive Roman Catholics or others into resistance and Eng- 
lishmen are compelled to choose between two classes of re- 
sisters, it is scarcely likely that public sympathy will 
declare itself against those who have worked most and 
spent most in the cause of public education. A poor Irish 
labourer contributing out of his scanty earnings some 
pence weekly in Saturday night collections, in order to 
maintain the Catholic school dear to his heart, makes a 
much more moving figure than Dr. Clifford, whose deno- 
mination has made no corresponding voluntary sacrifices 
for public education, but who has personally been grati- 
fied with a purse of six thousand pounds in recognition of 
his noble efforts to deprive those who differ from him of 
the schools of their choice. 

Another form of persecution is the general charge of 
proselytism brought against denominational schools. Such 
a charge is a breach of the ninth commandment, as every 
practical teacher knows. Church schools are frequently 
used by Nonconformists where Council schools are equally 
available, and in some cases even more conveniently situ- 
ated. The religious difficulty is more a platform than a 
school difficulty. " Quartus," writing in the Manchester 
Guardian, quotes the words of a clerk to a large county 
authority, who said that " he could not recall any instance 
in which proselytism had taken place in any Church 
school; the children who came Dissenters left as Dis- 
senters." I think this will be the testimony of those who 
know the facts. Two points should be noted in this con- 
nection. Firstly, that any general charge of proselytism in 
the schools implies an indictment of the teachers in those 
schools, a charge the very breadth of whose scope con- 
demns it ; and secondly, there are in every town and village 
scores of eager Dissenting champions only too ready to 
exploit for partisan purposes any isolated act of prose- 
lytism which may occur, and to represent a rare and ex- 
ceptional case as if it were the general rule. 

The charges which do get into print have been frequently 
proved to be mere inventions, and the majority of them 
ring false in the ears of a practical educationist. As a 
•peoimen, I will take a letter signed " W W G.," which 


appeared in the British Weekly in June, 1907 The writer 
complains of having had prayer-book instruction forced 
on his child, in spite of his known wishes in the matter, 
which proved to him that the Conscience Clause is often 
inoperative. My readers will note that the writer does 
not claim to have appealed to the Conscience Clause. Did 
he expect the Conscience Clause to " operate " without 
being set in operation 1 " His known wishes in the matter" 
can only refer to the known fact that he was a Dissenter, 
but the Conscience Clause does not say that the children 
of Dissenters are by that very fact excluded from the reli- 
gious teaching. So that we have here a typical picture 
of a Nonconformist grievance — the spectacle of a man who 
cares so little about the matter in question that he will 
not write a note to the school claiming for his child exemp- 
tion from the religious teaching, yet who cares so much 
about the matter as to write a longish letter to the 
British Weekly, in which he insinuates a shabby and dis- 
ingenuous charge of persecution under " our unrighteous 
educational system." 

Dr. Clifford^ in hia review of a novel written by a Non- 
oonformist minister, reproduces that picture of English 
rural life which finds favour on Free Church Council plat- 
forms. He quotes his author, who puts into the vicar's 
mouth the words : " You see, after all, Churchmanship is 
more to us than general education. It is the Church first 
and everything else second." The curate is represented 
as " a disciple of the Jesuit Liguori, who turns the screw 
ecclesiastic the last round that it can be made to go." Dr. 
Clifford says that the book is " simply a true description 
of the working of a theory of the Church and of Church 
and State in the village life of England." He speaks of 
" the fierce contest between the zeal and subtlety and 
Jesuitry of the Oxford Movement on the one hand, and the 
straightforward frankness, broad humanity, and inde- 
pendence of Free Church Christianity on the* other." In 
the picture of English village life at the beginning of the 
twentieth century he says : " We move amongst events 
which have recently stirred our nation to its depths. We 
are present at the uprising of the Passive Resistance agi- 


tation. We are hauled before the ' great unpaid,' and see 
the victims of their scorn and contempt, of their rudeness 
and discourtesy. We see the farmer ejected from his 
farm and driven to Canada for the ' crime of Dissent.' 
The workings of the ' Conscience Clause ' in State schools 
are laid bare, and its utter futility exposed." 

On similar lines is the leading article in the New Age 
for March 14, 1907, where it isi stated that the object of 
an association of Church people was " to make the Liberal 
Nonconformist a social pariah. To be a human being, an 
Englishman, a Christian — all this is to go for nothing. 
Plenty of hungry attorneys can be found to advise how 
far boycotting can be carried without the law being actu- 
ally infringed." One wonders if the writer of this precious 
article foamed at the mouth as he wrote the next two 
sentences : " Toryism is about his bed, and about his 
path, and keeps a severe eye on all his doings. To accept 
so much as the light thrown by a lantern on a dark night 
from a Liberal on the same road brings his 1 Tory master 
down upon him with fierce reproach." All this would be 
amusing if it were not so serious. Great is the responsi- 
bility of men who thus poison the springs of rural life 
by their wild and embittered accusations. Such men 
read into the hearts of their opponents the suspicion and 
hatred which possess their own. To be a Churchman, or 
even a Conservative, does not necessarily mean that a. man 
is an ogre. 

Another form of persecution consists in the assumption 
of lofty motives for themselves and the imputation of low 
motives to the other side. They alone have a sincere love 
of education as such ; those who differ from them do so 
from some ulterior motive. They are " Progressives " by 
name, and progressive by nature. To oppose any one of 
their pet schemes proves that you are an "obstructionist." 
Does the present London County Council reject the pro- 
posal to feed necessitous school children out of the rates, 
preferring to appeal to voluntary effort rather than under- 
mine parental responsibility and add to the public burdens? 
The Daily News thereupon accuses the Council of callous 
indifference to the sufferings of the children, heading its 
paragraph with the words " Let them starve." 


Yet another form of persecution consists in ignoring 
the public services of denominationalists and reaping up 
acts of intolerance which took place in past generations, 
and, in some cases, centuries ago. When the Puritans 
had the upper hand in England they persecuted the Angli- 
can Church ; later on the latter returned the compliment. 
Is it fair for modern Dissenters to harp on the persecution 
some of their forefathers suffered, and ignore the persecu- 
tion others of them inflicted? It is quite time that the 
miserable records of past oppression were consigned to 
oblivion. Let us set a time-limit to these tales of perse- 
cution, and see to it that we ourselves do not by our un- 
forgetting and unforgiving spirit show that not even in 
the twentieth century have we learned the lesson of 
brotherly love and true Christian feeling. 

The Free Churches are on their trial before the nation. 
For the moment they have a giant's strength; if they 
use it like a giant, tyrannouslv and vindictively, they 
will incur discredit and disgrace, from which not a century 
of national life will suffice to relieve them. 

Is Mr. Cadburt's Monet Tainted? 
A Nonconformist Case for the Nonconformist Conscience. 

The practical work of the Free Church Council has de- 
pended largely for financial support on the efforts of a 
handful of wealthy supporters'. In the list of ordinary 
donations and subscriptions for the year 1905-6, out of 
152 contributors, four gave between them more than half 
the total. One of these was Mr. George Cadbury, who ia 
stated (Year Book for 1906, page 32) to have " contributed 
never less than £1,200 a year to the work." Under these 
circumstances the Free Church Council is intimately con- 
cerned in the revelations recently made as to the servile 
conditions under which cocoa cultivation is carried on in 
the Portuguese islands of Sao Thome - and Principe, off 
the West Coast of Africa, from which islands Messrsi. Cad- 
bury, Fry, and Rowntree obtain raw cocoa. Negroes are 
recruited on the mainland in Angola to work on the plan- 
tations in the two islands above named. Speaking of the 
revelations made by the traveller Dr. Nevinuon, the Man- 


chrskr Guardian of November 22nd, 1907, says: — ''In 
1904-5 Mr. Nevinson undertook a voyage of investigation, 
and his book, 'A Modern Slavery,' is a terrible indict- 
ment. He visited the islands themselves, and penetrated 
to the hinterland of Angola, where the labour for the 
plantations is recruited. He found that the hapless 
negroes are taken against their will down to the coast 
along the road to Benguela, which for three hundred 
years has carried the slaves to the ocean and which is 
lined with their bleaching skeletons. At Benguela the 
captives enter into a ' contract ' for five years, a ' con- 
tract ' which they do not understand and which is an in- 
famous farce ; for there are few who can live on the plan- 
tations for five years 1 , since the death-rate is more than 
20 per cent per annum. Altogether there are, according 
to Mr. Nevinson, between 30,000 and 40,000 slaves in 
the two islands, so that the annual traffic must amount 
to some 7,000." 

In 1905 the cocoa firms involved sent out Mr. Burtt 
to visit the islandsi of San Thome and Principe, as well 
as the districts in Angola on the mainland where the 
negroes are recruited. This envoy of the cocoa firms re- 
ported to his emplovers, according to the Daily News of 
December 16th, 1907: — 

"This report established the following facts: — 

1. That a large proportion of the natives of Angola 
who are taken to St. Thome are shipped to the islands 
against their will ; 

2. That the good repatriation laws are a dead letter ; 

•V That innumerable 'offences against the person of 
the native ' now take place, this being inevitable until 
labour is made free in reality and not in name only ; 

4. That the death rate, despite excellent treatment on 
the large and best-managed estates, is appalling ; and, 

. r >. That most of the mortality is due to two diseases — 
anaemia and dysentery — complaints that are easily de- 
veloped by people in a depressed mental condition, the 
highest death rate being amongst newly-arrived labourers 
forcibly taken from their homes to work across the sea 
without any hope of return." 


The Lisbon planters, in reply to these charges, promised 
certain reforms, and the British Foreign Office has the 
matter in hand at present. 

In view of the above distressing facts set forth by the 
cocoa firms' own agent, it is somewhat disappointing to 
note the attitude of the religious press in England. The 
Christian World, under the heading '' Conscience and the 
Cocoa Trade," says: "An interesting illustration of the 
way in which Christian principle may influence the con- 
ditions of commerce has just been given in the cocoa 
trade." All the horrors of the past and present are here 
ignored on the strength of a reform still in the womb of 
the future. The Methodist Recorder says : " Meanwhile, 
we believe our countrymen have acted in an entirely 
honourable and Christian way. They might have left 
things alone, pleading that they had no direct responsi- 
bility." The Daily News, in a short leader of some two 
dozen lines, on what it mildly calls " The Plantation 
Problem," says: "We are content to leave the statement 
in respect of cocoa cultivation by native labour, which 
we summarise elsewhere, to speak for itself. It is our 
hope that the* reforms there described will prove real 
and final, nor can it be questioned that the British firms 
have exerted the strongest pressure on the planters with 
a view to securing this desirable end. Under these cir- 
cumstances further comment at the present stage is un- 
necessary," etc. 

Such feeble andj ineffective commentls asl those just 
quoted seem somewhat inadequate. It is to be hoped that 
no scurrilous attacks will be made on the great Quaker 
cocoa firms after the fashion of those which abounded 
during the Chinese " slavery " agitation . The language of 
Dr. Clifford when in his indignation over the Congo atro- 
cities he called King Leopold '' the worst man in Europe," 
should find no imitators. But undoubtedly Mr. Cadbury 
and the other cocoa firms are on the defensive, and, quite 
apart from questions of reform in the future, they have 
to render an account to a startled public conscience for 
their record in the past and present. The mischief has 
been going on, and is still going on. No prospective re- 


forms can obliterate past records. Even the meagre 
accounts furnished, not by critics, but by the cocoa firms 
themselves, on the report of their accredited agent, leave 
some points which call for explanation. Among these 
may be named the following: — 

1. Since when have the cocoa firms been aware of the 
slavery which has been so long in existence? In 
plain English, how long did they do what they com- 
plain of being accused of doing, i.e., "tacitly acqui- 
esce in the production of cocoa by slaves"? This- 
statement they call "scurrilous." Let it then be 
disproved. If Mr. Cadbury can say that the recent 
revelations were as much news to him as to the 
outside public, he should say so. In the absence of 
express 1 information on this point, it seems reason- 
able to hold that those engaged in the cocoa trade 
knew more about the conditions under which the raw 
cocoa was produced than the general public could be 
expected to know. 

2. Mr. Fox Bourne. Secretary of the Aborigines' Pro- 
tection Society, stated in 1907 that for more than 
five years his- society had been protesting against 
the state of things in the West African possessions 
of Portugal, and had been urging on His Majesty's 
Government the duty of using its influence towards 
procuring their amendment, and independent action 
contemplated by it had merely been postponed for 
a short time in the hope that efforts now being made 
by the cocoa makers in the same direction will more 
satisfactorily bring about the desired reforms. 

The cocoa firms had attempted to screen themselves 
to some extent behind the names of the Anti-Slavery and 
Aborigines' Protection Society by stating that they had 
throughout been in touch with those societies, and that 
they (the societies) had " concurred " with the firms in 
their course of action up to the present." To this Mr. 
Fox Bourne replied : " The Society's ' concurrence ' in the 
present action of the cocoa manufacturers in no way 
countenances the existing state of things in the West 
African possessions of Portugal." 


If, a« above st*.ted, Mr. Bourne's society had for "more 
than five years " prior to 1907 been protesting to the 
Government against the cocoa slavery, this fact shows 
that in 1902 or earlier the shocking state of things then 
existing was not unknown in certain quarters. Were the 
cocoa firms directly interested less well informed? Yet it 
was not until 1903 that they began to make any move- 
ment in the matter. Mr. Cadbury's words are: — "The 
methods of recruiting the labourers employed on the cocoa 
plantations in San Thome and Principe and their treat- 
ment on these islands first received our serious attention 
in 1903, when I visited Lisbon and had interviews with 
the British Minister, the Portuguese Minister of Colonies, 
and various influential planters. The upshot was that 
the latter denied the charges of permitting slavery." 

Here we have Mr. Cadbury apparently investigating 
matters as if in complete ignorance of facts which were 
so notorious in the eyes of the Aborigines' Protection 
Society as to have been made the basis of representations 
to the British Foreign Office. 

3. But two years more are allowed to pass in this 
extraordinarily leisurely business, and then, in 1905, 
the cocoa firms sent out an agent of their own, Mr. 
Burtt, to visit the districts and report. Why were 
these precious years allowed to lapse without ap- 
parent action? 
i. We are told that ''Mr. Burtt's inquiry extended over 
nearly two years." There wasi no need for any par- 
ticular hurry, it seems, although the native workers 
were dying off all the time at the rate of 20 per 
cent per annum. It would be interesting to know 
to what extent, if any, the interval between 1903 and 
1907 was employed in introducing some of the amelio- 
rations on the larger estates referred to in) Mr. 
Burtt's report in order to make the case of the 
planters a little more presentable. 
In short, what is needed is an independent inquiry in 
which the points just noted could be cleared up. At 
present we have only the evidence vouchsafed by the 
firms who are on their defence. 


What will be the attitude of the Free Church Council 
in this matter? It is their especial concern, for Mr. 
Geo. Cadbury has been one of their most liberal sup- 
porters. Money made in connection with servile condi- 
tions in one part of Africa has been employed in foment- 
ing an agitation against servile conditions in two other 
parts of Africa; — the Transvaal and the Congo. What 
renders the situation more piquant is that the President 
of the Free Church Council at the time the revelations 
took place was, like Mr. Cadbury, a Birmingham resi- 
dent, and member of the Society of Friends, whilst Dr. 
Clifford has taken the lead in denouncing the state of 
things in the Transvaal and on the Congo. The matter 
affords a touchstone of the Nonconformist conscience. Will 
it be said that as the eye sees other objects but does not 
see itself, so the Nonconformist conscience operates on 
the doings of others but never on its own. 

If Dr. Clifford desires to denounce the iniquities of 
San Thome and Principe, he might easily cull a few choice 
phrases from his own introduction to the anonymous 
work, " John Chinaman on the Rand." May I select for 
him a few appropriate touches? "It is another blood- 
stained page in the history of the inhumanity of man to 
man. It violates the domestic and the social ideals. It 
is inevitably and overwhelmingly immoral. It must go. 
It is not a necessity. It is a wanton iniquity. It is shuf- 
fling of the meanest kind to say that it is not slavery. 
Let Britishers realise their responsibility and bring to a 
speedy and final end this return to barbarism." 

The Nonconformist Conscience Sometimes Voicepul, 
Sometimes Dumb. 

Since the above lines were written, the Annual Meeting 
of the Free Church Council for 1908 has been held at South- 
port. Not a word of inquiry or protest or admonition was 
addressed to Mr. George Cadbury, who is one of their 
three Treasurers, in reference to his business associations 
with the servile conditions under which raw cocoa is pro- 
duced in the island of San Thome' and the still more dread- 
ful details of recruiting in Angola. So far was the Counr 


oil from shrinking at the thought of accepting Mr. Cad- 
bury's money, that the Secretary gratefully referred at 
the Southport meeting to a further and quite recent gift of 
one thousand pounds made by him to the Council funds. 
Yet that the moral responsibility of Mr. Cadbury was felt 
by himself to be involved by his; trade associations was 
obvious from his meeting the Liverpool Chamber of Com- 
merce when they challenged the attitude of the cocoa firms 
in the matter, and also by the attempt of those firms to 
shelter themselves behind the Anti-Slavery and Abori- 
gines' Protection Societies. In face of these facts the Free 
Church Council maintains an absolute silence. That body 
has only existed some sixteen years, and yet in that short 
space of time it has allowed itself without protest to be 
compromised on the one hand by Mr. Aked, who links 
them with Mr. Rockefeller and the methods! of the Stan- 
dard Oil Company, and on the other by Mr. George Gad- 
bury, one of their Treasurers, who associates them with 
the horrors of Angola recruiting and the San Thome cocoa 

The Council found time to denounce the Congo atro- 
cities, but not those with which certain of their own Free 
Churchmen had business associations. Since the advent of 
his political friends to power in January, 1906, Dr. Clif- 
ford seems to have lost interest in the conditions of labour 
in the Transvaal. Yet there is much that should demand 
the attention of one who wrote an introduction to " John 
Chinaman on the Rand." After more than two years of 
political power, his friends still tolerate the presence of 
nearly thirty thousand Chinamen, and negotiations are now 
going on for importing labourers to live in " compounds " 
from the French colony of Madagascar and the Portuguese 
colony of Mozambique. It is a significant and ominous 
combination that the British Minister at Lisbon, at one 
and the same interview with the Portuguese Minister of 
Marine and Colonies in March, 1908, pressed for a change 
in the methods of native recruiting in Angola, and also 
conferred on the recruitment of native labourers in Mozam- 
bique, and their employment in the Transvaal r ines. 
If Dr. Clifford loses interest in the conditions of labour 


on the Rand now that he can no longer make party capital 
out of them, one can only say that the Nonconformist con- 
science knows its friends. 

There is a place in public life for denunciation, with its 
implied assumption of superior virtue, but the thing may 
easily be overdone. The note of sincerity is absolutely 
essential. Some Athenians wearied of hearing Aristides 
called the Just, although he never claimed the title, and 
yet fully deserved it. But when a man condemns in public 
what he does in private, what shall we say 1 This feat was 
accomplished a few years ago by a Nonconformist minister 
of Blackpool, who denounced from the pulpit the public 
amusements of that town of which he was subsequently 
proved by the directors to have been at the time a share- 

The Rev. B. Nightingale, in his " Story of the Lanca- 
shire Congregational Union," says (page 12) that " reli- 
gious people had not then the slightest scruple about hold- 
ing their religious gatherings in either coffee-house or 
tavern." He mentions the case of the Rev. Peter Walkden, 
for some years Nonconformist minister at Hesketh Lane, 
near Garstang, who " invariably went to a neighbouring 
public-house for a ' refresher ' before entering the pulpit to 
preach. As late even as the days of Dr. Raffles, whose 
bottle of champagne was quite a. feature of the annual 
gatherings of the Union, when the time for the sermon 
came the unfinished business was usually delegated to the 
committee, who would quietly slip away to the nearest 
and most convenient public-house for its despatch." The 
author adds : " All this shows us that we have travelled 
very far in relation to these matters." That is true 
enough, but one may very well wonder whether the change 
marks a genuine moral advance. Certainly the Congrega- 
tional ministers of to-day would scarcely claim to be better 
men or truer Christians than Dr. Raffles. The influence 
of aggressive and intolerant teetotalism ha^ of late worked 
up a sort of artificial and factitious conscience in the 
matter, until the mere holding of shares in a brewery by 
a Christian minister is declared to be a sin deserving ex- 
pulsion from the Church, yet these same Churches admit 


brewers to their membership. To strain at the gnat of 
a few shares in a brewery whilst swallowing the camel of 
a brewer and his entire brewery seems scarcely consistent. 
It Is time the Nonconformist conscience wrought its ver- 
dicts into harmony with one another. 

Is the Influence of the Free Church Council Narrowing 
Wesley an Methodism? 

The Rev. J. S. Simon, President of the Wes- 
leyan Conference, said at a recent meeting in 
Manchester that " the Methodists were not party 
politicians." Of course, the words do not imply 
that individual Methodists are not adherents of 
one or other of the political parties ; he could only mean 
that the Methodist organisation was not employed by 
adherents of one political party to the annoyance and 
detriment of their co-religionists of the other parties; 
in other words, that no one political party was allowed 
to " capture," as the phrase goes, the machinery of Metho- 
dism for its sectional ends. 

Is it true, $ien, that Methodism does not allow its reli- 
gious organisation to be exploited by any political party? 
One's first impulse, in response to such a challenge, is to 
call up any incidents in our own personal experience 
bearing on the point. Before discussing the question 
on more general grounds, I will give a case or two which 
have been forced on my notice. I was in Manchester imme- 
diately prior to the general election of 1906, and was shown 
the " Monthly Visitor " of a Wesleyan Mission Hall in 
the neighbourhood. The " Visitor " was distributed gratis 
in large numbers, and this particular copy had been left 
at the house where I was staying. It contained a strong 
appeal to readers to vote against Mr. Balfour. Now, tak- 
ing sides in a general election is, in my opinion, to that 
extent making Methodism political. It is employing the 
machinery of a Church which includes both Liberals and 
Conservatives in a way which pleases the former and dis- 
pleases the latter. One can imagine the outcry which 
would be raised if Unionists attempted a like perversion. 
During the recent controversy over the Mayoralty of 


Alderman Holt there was delivered another copy of the 
same "' Monthly Visitor," containing a letter to working 
men signed by the minister in charge. In this case the 
narrowest teetotal view was put forward in the name of 
Methodism. I quote a few sentences from the letter : 
" Public feeling has run very high, and has made it very 
clear, that there are in our midst a very large number 
of true-hearted citizens. We maintain that the 

office of Lord Mayor of any city should be an office utterly 
disinterested with those things which go to constitute 
our grave social problems. There is no getting away from 
the fact that to this office should be brought all those 
stern qualities of heart and mind which continually seek 
out a city's good," etc. I will leave it to my readers to 
characterise the logic and English of these sentences. 

About four years ago I was staying near Belper, and one 
day, strolling into the town, saw a notice that the Rev. 
E. L. J., of M., "the renowned Welsh orator," would 
preach at the Wesleyan Chapel in the afternoon, and 
lecture on " Oliver Cromwell " in the evening. I decided 
to hear the lecture. There was a very fair attendance. 
The superintendent minister gave out the hymn com- 
mencing '' Soldiers of Christ, arise," and the junior 
minister led the congregation in prayer. The lecturer 
was then introduced. I soon found that the fare to be 
provided was intensely narrow and political. Of course 
there was an overstrained eulogy of Cromwell. In his 
anxiety to exalt his hero, the lecturer sometimes failed to 
grasp the implication of his own statements. Thus, in 
enlarging on Cromwell's greatness, he said that the great- 
ness of a man must be gauged by the opposition he over- 
came. Now Cromwell, he told us, at the zenith of his 
power, never had more than one-sixth of the people of Eng- 
land on his side. This picture of Cromwell as a military 
tyrant, using the trained force of one-sixth of the nation 
to keep down the resentful, but helpless, five-sixths, ac- 
corded very ill with the picture which he had previously 
drawn of the Protector as the friend of freedom. The 
lecturer seemed to have three pet aversions — kings, 
bishops, and landlords. He mentioned as quite a won- 


derful fact that he had found a book of which he was in 
search on a bookstall in a cathedral city. How could any- 
thing good come out of a place which contained the resi- 
dence of a bishop? 

Mr. J. even went into family matters. He told us that 
he had given his brother five pounds to buy basic slag 
to be spread on the old farm which had been occupied by 
their father before it came to be held by his brother. Being 
on a visit to his brother at the farm shortly afterwards, 
the latter took him to the field on which the basic slag 
had been spread, and drew his attention to the fact that, 
for the first time in the history of the field, it contained 
a crop of white clover. Mr. J. told us that he replied 
to his brother : " Adam sowed that clover in the Garden 
of Eden, but tyranny had kept it down till now." The 
audience found thisi wretched clap-trap immensely enter- 
taining. They did not trouble their heads with reflections 
on the lecturer's assumptions. The location of the Garden 
of Eden in Wales — the way in which landlord tyranny 
could keep the seed from springing, and how the basic slag 
overcame the sterilising effect of landlord tyranny were 
matters about "which they did not stop to reason. There 
was a dig at the landlord class, and that was enough. Yet 
all, or nearly all, those present accepted the traditional 
view of the early chapters of Genesis, according to which 
the first landlord was God Himself, with the first man as 
a tenant under one express condition of tenancy. This 
violated, an ejectment took place, which was enforced 
bv angels as executive officers. But it is wasting time to 
treat seriously such stuff as Mr. J. gave his hearers. Suffice 
it to say that he went merrily on, delivering a lecture which 
would have been in place at a Liberal Club, but which 
was very much out of place in a Wesleyan chapel, and 
after a hymn and prayer. That the lecturer himself was 
well aware of the political character of his deliverance was 
strikingly proved. Before the lecture was over one of the 
audience rose and walked out. Mr. J. told the people not 
to be disturbed. "My Liberal pills," he said, "are 
strong, and have been known to move people out of the 
pew into the street." 


Here then, was clear proof from the speaker's own lips. 

1. That he knew he was delivering a political address. 

2. That he was well aware that the views expressed by 
him were distasteful to some of his hearers and co- 

3. That he gloried in the abuse of his position despite 
this fact. 

As if to supply corroborative evidence as to the intensely 
political character of the lecture, the local Badioal paper 
(The Belper News and Deibyshire Telephone) exultingly 
described it as consisting of " undiluted Radicalism." 

The sophistical way in which this partisan abuse of a 
neutral platform is sometimesi excused was well illustrated 
il the late municipal contest in St. George's Ward, Man- 
chester. The managers of the Bridge'water Hall Wesleyan 
Mission organised a meeting for the Liberal (lady) can- 
didate. After a hymn and prayer, Mr. E. Farrow, who 
presided, said " it was not usual to have meetings of a poli- 
tical nature in a Wesleyan church. This was not Miss 
Ashton's meeting, however. They had organised it them- 
selves, and they had invited Miss Ashton to address them." 
This miserable quibble does not serve to disguise the fact 
that Mr. Farrow and his friends could not possibly have 
declared more emphatically for Miss Ashton's candidature 
than they did. They threw into the scale in her favour 
not merely their personal adhesion, but also the influence 
of the mission as such, with all its religious and philan- 
thropic associations. These things, which are the property 
of no political party, were appropriated to the service 
of a political party. For in all these regrettable perver- 
sions, it is always the same political section which profits. 
What chance would a Conservative Wesleyan candidate 
have of being aided in the way Mr. Farrow helped Miss 
Ashton? That lady is, I believe, a Unitarian, but political 
preferences are stronger than religious affinities' at the 
Brid^ewater Mission Hall. In my boyhood the Wesleyan 
hymn-book contained a line which ran, " The Unitarian 
fiend expel." Even to-day Unitarians are excluded from 
association with the Free Church Council. But with Mr. 
Farrow and his friends politics were paramount. 


Influbnob of the Rev. H. P Hughes. 

These departures of Methodists from the tradition of 
political neutrality are a thing of comparatively modern 
growth, and much of the partisan spirit which is abroad 
may be traced to the example and influence of the late 
Mr. Hughes. As editor of the Methodist Times he made 
an onslaught on two important departments of Methodist 
work, the Foreign Missionary department and that con- 
cerned with the day schools. The former is only just re- 
covering to some extent from the effects of the suspicion 
and mistrust aroused in the minds of some Methodists by 
the attacks of Mr. Hughes, while the educational policy 
of the Connexion has been completely reversed. When, 
leaving the lines of destructive criticism, he attempted 
constructive work in the case of the proposed " separated 
chairmen," or " Methodist Bishops," his efforts proved a 

In the pursuit of his educational policy, he initiated and 
persistently carried on a press campaign against Dr. Rigg 
by name and the recognised policy of the Wesleyan Educa- 
tion Committee*. A parallel case would be presented if, 
say, the Methodist Recorder of to-day were to attack the 
present policy of starting and maintaining Wesleyan mis- 
sion halls in the large centres of population, combining in 
the attack the name of Dr. Pope as the individual most 
directly associated with the mission hall policy. To what 
homilies on loyalty to the institutions and polity of Metho- 
dism would the iconoclasts be treated in such a case as I 
have imagined. 

In his Presidential address to the Free Church Council in 
1896, speaking of the divisions which had prevailed among 
the Free Churches in the past, Mr. Hughes said: "We 
have tolerated, if we have not encouraged, a portentous 
development of that self-assertion, that trishna, which 
Buddha wisely recognised asi a main source of human 
misery. We have neglected the great Catholic virtues 
of humility, reverence, and obedience.''' These words 
are susceptible of an application undreamt of by the 
speaker. Mr. Hughes's personal tone, his subversive 


policy, his disregard of the feelings of others in the pur- 
suit of his ends, were so many lamentable instances of 
that self-assertion which, in another sphere, he sincerely 
deplored. So much accustomed are Wesleyans to this 
feature in the character of Mr. Hughes that instances of 
it axe sometimes given by admirers who seem quite un- 
conscious of the revelation they are incidentally making. 
Thus the Rev. J. E. Rattenbury, writing in the Metho- 
dist Times, a few months ago, says : " Mr. Hugh Price 
Hughes, addressing the students at Didsbury College in 
my day there, strongly advised us, to our intense amaze- 
ment, to read the Methodist Recorder, and then added, in 
parenthesis, ' you will understand the superiority of the 
Methodist Times.' " It is happily not usual for the editor 
of one religious newspaper to abuse a neutral platform 
in order to decry a rival paper; yet Mr. Rattenbury 
quotes the incident as if the action were normal. Did 
the trishna in Mr. Rattenbury blind him to the existence 
of that element in Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. Hughes assumed to be the originator and leader 
of the forward movement in Methodism, but some of the 
best elements in that movement owed their inspiration 
to other heads and hearts. It would be possible to 
name a distinguished Wesleyan minister, happily still 
living, who worked zealously for progress before Mr. 
Hughes appeared on the scene. The difference between 
the two might be summarised thus : That whereas Mr. 
Hughes worried two great departments of Methodist acti- 
vity, the other wounded no sincere souls by personal 
attacks, sowed no seeds of partisanship and bitterness 
in the Connexion, but loyally sustained existing depart- 
ments, and created on his own initiative two new and 
fruitful forms of service — a ministry to destitute children 
and a ministry of service by godly women. 

Mr. Hughes intervened in a. partisan spirit in the 
School Board election at Manchester in 1888. The 
" unsectarian " party had arranged for preferential treat- 
ment of Roman Catholic children in the Day Industrial 
School then being built. This plan I had strenuously 
opposed by voice and pen whilst a member of the Board. 


I was considerably surprised when Mr. Hughes, speak- 
ing in the Free Trade Hall, gave vigorous support to the 
party responsible for the policy of placing the entire 
cost of Roman Catholic teaching in the new school on 
the rates. In the following year I wrote a pamphlet of 
72 pages, "The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, M.A., and 
Wesleyan Methodist Educational Policy," in which I at- 
tacked Mr. Hughes on the education question, and 
argued out the whole subject from the Wesleyan stand- 
point. To that pamphlet no reply of any kind was forth- 
coming. I mention this fact lest some should think that 
it was an easy task and one requiring little courage to 
arraign the actions and views of one who can no longer 
speak for himself. To this the reply in my case is four- 
fold : 1. The deeds of public men are public property 
and a legitimate object of public criticism. 2. I chal- 
lenged Mr. Hughes in the most direct manner when he 
had every opportunity of replying. 3. He has now an 
abundance of potential defenders. 4. The real object 
of my attack is the partisan spirit and method he intro- 
duced and did so much to encourage in Methodism. 

The spirit t>f aggressive self-assertion and the tone 
of jealousy and bitterness towards the Church of Eng- 
land which are too prominent to-day in Methodism are 
largely the fruit of Mr. Hughes's action. In the Educa- 
tion controversy of twenty years ago all the devices 
with which we have in more recent days been made too 
familiar were employed. Instances of clerical intolerance 
in the day schools were hinted at, but not produced. 
An ex-president of the National Union of Teachers told 
me that at a public meeting which he attended, Mr. 
Hughes gave some " cases " of intolerance, but when 
challenged to name the places 1 where they had occurred, 
so as to give the opportunity of verification, he declined to 
do so. A few genuine cases would have been a perfect 
godsend to the party of agitation, but the difficulty 
felt in producing one such instance out of the many 
thousands of schools throughout the length and breadth 
of the land, bore striking testimony to the broad and 
loyal spirit in which the clergy worked the schools. 


On one occasion Mr. Hughes ventured on a definite 
statement. He said that a certain clergyman in the 
diocese of Peterborough had made an intolerant remark 
about the ministers of the Dissenting Churches, for 
which he had been rebuked by his diocesan. The Bishop 
of Peterborough, on being written to on the subject, 
answered that no such case had ever been brought under 
his notice. No reply was made to this letter. 

Some thirty or forty years ago a Church clergyman 
named Gace published a catechism of his own composi- 
tion, which he intended for use in Church day schools. 
Its tone was so intolerant that Nonconformists might 
justly take exception to its teachings. " Gace's Cate- 
chism," as it was called, never came into general use; it 
is even questionable if it was ever used in more than 
half a dozen schools. But after what little Church demand 
there had ever been had ceased, there set in a Noncon- 
formist demand for purposes of agitation, the intolerant 
sentences of Mr. Gace's Catechism being quoted as speci- 
mens of the religious teaching usually given in Church 
schools. With this catechism Mr. Hughes made great 
play twenty years ago, and in the general election of 
1906, in Mr. Hughes'si own country of Wales, Gace's 
Catechism was exhumed for purposes of misrepresentation. 
Some of the most intolerant sentences were read out at 
the meetings, and perhaps in the first instance the remark 
was made that it was a Catechism written by a clergy- 
man of the Church of England. (Candour would have 
dictated the statement that the Catechism was a dead 
letter, not being used in any Church schools!, but let 
that pass.) The next step was to call it a Church Cate- 
chism, and lastly it was regarded by the mass of the 
hearers _ as the Church Catechism. This was one of the 
mendacities with which the Welsh elections were won. 

Largely under the influence of Mr. Hughes and his fol- 
lowers, the policy of the Wesleyan Education Committee 
has been reversed. Wesleyan day schools 1 are being closed 
and the influence which Methodism should exercise in the 
settlement of national education is being steadily weak- 
ened. One-eighth of their number was surrendered 


last year. The j-esolution of Conference which declared 
that till a desirable settlement was reached the Wesleyan 
Day Schools and Training Colleges should be maintained 
is dropped out of sight. Mr. Percy Bunting has even 
taken on himself to prophesy that in the future Wesleyans 
would themselves entirely support their training colleges. 
Thus the policy initiated by Mr. Hughes on the educa- 
tion question is triumphant. He Sought to link Metho- 
dism to the unsectarian party on the English School 
Boards, and at a later date strove to connect it with the 
Free Church Council, which he had done so much to 
fashion. It is such gentlemen as Messrs. Perks, Bunting, 
and Lidgett, prominent Wesleyan members of the Free 
Church Council, who practically dominate the Wesleyan 
Education Committee. They reproduce the anti- Anglican 
bias, the political animus, and partisan spirit displayed 
by Mr. Hughes. 

The London County Council election of March, 1907, 
afforded an example of the length to which some Lon- 
don Methodists would go in their attempts to link Metho- 
dism and their own political party. When the Metho- 
dist Times, of* which Mr. Lidgett is editor, sleeks in a 
leading .article to make out that Liberalism is Chris- 
tianity applied to politics, no one can object to the 
statement being made, for the paper is speaking only for 
itself. Even when it prints a leader on the two sides in 
the impending London County Council election under the 
heading " Loot v. Love," one may question the accuracy 
and good taste of the alternative as thus put, but no 
further objection can justly be made. When, however, 
the Methodist Times strove to commit the London Metho- 
dist Council to the support of the " Progressive " party, 
its action met with opposition, even from so ardent a 
Liberal as Mr. Perksi. He resisted the attempt that 
was being made to issue a particularly violent "mani- 
festo " in the name of the London Methodist Council, and 
succeeded in modifying its terms. I quote a portion of 
his interesting letter to the Methodist Times : — 

"Sitting in my pew at Bayswater Chapel and looking 
round, I asked myself what will be the result of placarding 


such a manifesto upon the doors of our chapel ? I remem- 
bered how a similar election poster was torn down from 
several Methodist chapel doors in 1904. I knew that a 
majority of the active and successful workers, and office 
bearers, of our Denbigh-road Church were Moderates and 
not Progressives. Those of us who vote " Progressive " 
are in a very decided minority. Such is the case in 
many London chapels. Was I to tell my Moderate friend 
in the next pew that he would be voting for a man of 
inferior character and intelligence if he supported the 
Moderate and not the Progressive candidate for Ken- 
sington? To post such a placard upon the doors of our 
chapels struck me as an un-Christian and stupid thing 
to do. A young preacher at our Council meeting charged 
me with being a ' reactionary. ,' and launched upon me 
a sermonette about duty and expediency." 

Mr. Lidgett's retort! to this dignified and reasoned 
rebuke was to tell Mr. Perks that " there was a flavour of 
Satan rebuking sin about Mr. Perks's solemn warning 
against introducing party politics into the Chutvh." Some 
other ministers were quite as extreme in their partisan- 
ship as Mr. Lidgett. The Kev. G. A. Benne'^s, for ex- 
ample, contrasted "the triumph of Christ," i.e., the suc- 
cess of his party at the polls, with " a victory of the 
devil," i.e., the success of the other side, and that on a 
point which acutely divided Methodists. He also wrote : 
" It will be nothing short of a disgrace to Methodism 
if the (Methodist) Council should refrain from putting 
forth its utmost efforts to prevent the triumph of obscu- 
rantism, of mammon, and of vice in the approaching 
election." And he summed up in the following words 
those opposed to his views (among whom, as he well knew, 
were many of his fellow Wesleyans) : " Those who are 
interested in the property and power of priestcraft, and 
those who are interested in the liquor traffic, in gambling 
houses, in book-making, in brothels, and in debasing en- 

All thie shows that there is a party in Methodism which 
does not scruple to use the common organisation for par- 
tisan ends. Hitherto it has been official Liberalism which 


has gained by tKis intrusion of politics into religion, but 
of late a new development has occurred, and we have the 
Rev. J E. Rattenbury using the pulpit of an important 
London Mission as a platform for Socialist propaganda. 
He advocates the breaking down of the present social 
system. He writes: — ■ 

"Are you doing nothing to save souls if you can break 
down a social system which makes such things possible i 
If you establish a social order in which men may expect 
the minimum of decent existence as their human right — 
surely this is saving souls?" 

Mr. Rattenbury also advocates the nationalisation of 
children. "Children under Socialism," he writes, "would 
undoubtedly be considered State property." Monarchy, 
too, is doomed, but execution in this case is to be delayed, 
and so on. This is the Socialism that flows from Mr. 
Rattenbury's pen, and which inspires the words that issue 
from his lips. Now, those who object on principle to the 
narrowing of Methodism will not stay to inquire whether 
these principles are good or bad. They will simply say 
that, good or bad, they are outside the scope of the 
Methodist pulpit. Even those who take the lower ground 
that the extraneous political teaching thus introduced 
may be encouraged, or, at least, tolerated, so long as 
it is in general harmony with the views of Methodists, 
should object to Mr. Rattenbury's escapade, for Wesleyans 
are by no means prepared either to regard the State as 
possessing a prior right over their children or to pro- 
nounce with a light heart for the break-up of our present 
social order, or to contemplate with equanimity the pro- 
spective destruction of our ancient monarchy. Most 
Methodists hold that children belong primarily to their 
parents, although they recognise that the State has cer- 
tain rights in and over them. When the Socialist tells 
them that they have one thirty-millionth share in their 
own children, but that, by way of compensation, they 
have the same fractional part of other people's children, 
most Methodists would shake their heads. They do not 
think that the road to social evolution lies through the 
impairment of family life. 


The action and attitude of Mr. Rattenbury will compel 
Methodists to face the whole question of the political 
neutrality or otherwise of their body. It is beyond ques- 
tion that if the opposite school of political thought at- 
tempted to employ the Wesleyan pulpit for partisan pur- 
poses, Mr. Rattenbury and his friends would be among 
the first to object to what they would deem an outrage. 
They would then perhaps see the essentially anarchic and 
disruptive nature of all such perversion. Let us hope 
that after due consideration of the matter the action of 
the political leaven may be stayed, so that there may 
be at least one religious body outside the Church of Eng- 
land where men of all politics are equally welcome, and 
feel equally at home. Mr. Hughes himself, in 1896, de- 
clared from the chair of the Free Church Council that 
" every true Church ought to be comprehensive enough 
to provide a home for men of every shade of political 
opinion." I notice with pleasure that Sir Henry Fowler, 
speaking in February, 1908, expressed a fear that Metho- 
dism had of late become a little too political. 

In his eloquent special pleading on behalf of Socialistic 
propaganda in a Wesleyan pulpit, Mr. Rattenbury seems 
to magnify unduly the influence of circumstance. The 
Methodist Recorder of Feb. 27th, 1908, in an article on 
the Victoria Hall, Ancoats, has some lines which are worth 
quoting on this point : " If it is true that ' Sin will make 
a wilderness of any garden !' it is equally certain that 'Sal- 
vation will create a garden from a slum.' Go through 
some of these (Ancoats) streets, and you will come to a 
house distinguished from the rest by its neatly-sanded 
doorstep, its white curtains, and possibly a geranium in 
its clean window. It is nearly certain to be the home of 
n Mission convert. The new heart has made the new 

Sir J. S. Randies, M.P., writing in the Methodist 
Recorder recently, put the case for political neutrality 
in a forcible manner. He says : " I object to the pulpits 
and platforms of Methodism being used to promote any 
political objects. It is a taunt not without justification 
by Mr Rattenbury that ' party politicians have not the 


slightest objection to ministers being politicians, so long 
as they share their own politics.' Our Sunday afternoon 
meetings have been largely used for the benefit of measures 
supposed to be favoured by the Liberal party. Now, 
these same platforms are utilised for Socialist advocacy 
by men who agree with Mr. Rattenbury, and hold his 
views with a religious enthusiasm. My idea would be for 
the Church to influence the world by sending into it men 
of Christian character, and to trust to their influence to 
deal with affairs, so that, in the work and business of life, 
as well as of the State, the Christian character of the 
citizens will produce Christian conduct, without seeking 
direct power and control over public affairs." 

In the same issue " Scrutator " writes from Bangor : 
" The only answer to Mr. Rattenbury's special pleading, 
and to other Socialist ministers, is, ' At your own cost.' 
I am as much opposed as was Dr. Dale to the ' new union 
of Church and State,' as proposed by these people and 
militant Nonconformists! generally ; as to the existing 
State Church, if anything, rather more so. As I would 
say to the Ritualist, ' As many albs and stoles and genu- 
flexions as you like, if you pay for them yourself.' So 
to our Socialist and political ministers I would repeat, 
' Get a church of your own, and if you can find supporters, 
proclaim your doctrines there; if you don't, then I and 
other laymen must either button up our pockets or clear 
out ourselves.'" 

The point is perhaps put a little bluntly, but the danger 
indicated is a real one. 

Why Some Wbslbtans Do Not Support the Fbhh 
Church Council. 

Unfortunately, as has been shown, Mr. Hughes himself 
did much to accentuate the partisan side of Methodism. 
The influence of the Free Church Council, of which he 
was one of the founders, has tended in the same direction. 
That all Wesleyans are not in sympathy with the aims 
and methods 1 of that body was evidenced by the question- 
ing appeal of the Rev. S. Chadwick, asking Methodists 
why they "held aloof." It was shown even more decidedly 


in the replies which that appeal evoked. I will close this 
section with a few quotations from these able letters 
{Methodist Recorder, March 14th, 1907): — 

The Rev R. Wentworth Little gave some details! of the 
practical working of the local councils. I quote a portion 
of his letter : " In Derbyshire, a Free Church Council 
arranged with a Liberal Association to hold a joint meet- 
ing and to pay half of the expenses. Afterwards the 
local Churches, in some of which were not a few Conser- 
vatives, were requested to find their quota of the Coun- 
cil's debt. Not far from London a Free Church Council 
Social was called, stating that there would be refresh- 
ments and a collection, and adding that the Churches 
would be expected to make up any deficiency. In a Mid- 
land town a Free Church Council Girls' Guild was started, 
a house rented, furniture bought, and the local Churches 
were afterwards requested to find the money. Another 
Free Church Council incurred a debt, and asked the local 
Churches to pay their quota. My quarterly meeting re- 
pudiated any liability. I paid the amount, but could 
pet only one-half of the sum frbm the friends. Some, per- 
haps, of the ' shv ' superintendents have been twice 

" Super " shows up the political action of the local 
Councils : " Mr. Chadwick does not admit that the Free 
Church Councils 1 are political. Others think differently, 
and what occurred in my town circuit at the recent Par- 
liamentary and L.C.C. Elections supplies evidence that 
they are not mistaken. The local Free Church Council 
issued handbills and posters, and sent a supply to each 
church in the circuit within its area, requesting that 
the handbills should be distributed in the pews, and the 
posters placed at the chapel doors. Their purport was to 
secure the election of certain candidates of one political 
colour The ministers for the day were asked to read 
and comment upon the handbills, advise the congrega- 
tion to vote for the candidates named, solicit volunteers: 
as canvassers, and others to use their personal influence 
to secure the return of the candidates indicated." 

Another Wesleyan condemns the Free Church Council 


in more general terms : " It is because of this hypocritical 
pretence of being non-political; because of this; self- 
righteous, pharisaical attitude towards political oppo- 
nents; this spirit which is ready to claim the highest 
credit for the lowest ideals, and doe<3 not hesitate at the 
blasphemous and sacrilegious use of sacred names and 
phrases to support base and unworthy political schemes; 
this mean and crawling spirit which cries against the 
'injustice,' the moral 'unrighteousness' of every opinion 
contrary to its own ; it is because of these things that 
plain dealing men, such as I take it compose the body of 
our Methodist Church, ' look shyly at ' Free Church Coun- 
cils and their ways." 

Mr. F. S. Green draws attention to the Council's anti- 
Anglican bias : " Intentionally or unwittingly, the Coun- 
cil in many places fosters a spirit of antagonism to the 
Church of England. Now, it is hardly to be expected that 
Wesleyan Methodism— taking, as it does, a via media be- 
tween Episcopacy and Dissent — should join hands with 
those who are openly hostile to the Established Church." 

" Guy Gayle " writes in a similar vein, but with larger 
scope : " Re<*nt events have endangered the unity of the 
nation. The religious gulf which yawns between the 
Anglican half of England and the Free Church half is 
a matter of grief and dismay to silent thousands. Are 
there to be two Englands, as 1 there are two Irelands? Is 
the Christianity of our nation to be divided for centuries 
into two opposing camps? It looks like it. What a spec- 
tacle! The Wesleyan Methodisit Church never had a 
finer opportunity of manifesting a 'sublime aloofness. 
She is not, in a political sense, a fighting Church, for 
she has never been in conflict with the State. Her mis- 
sion in the world is unaffected by forms of government, 
and we imagine that even under a tyranny she would 
manage to deliver her message. She has drawn a glit- 
tering sword against the world, the flesh, and the devil. 
But she will never flourish that sword in the face of a sister 
Church, or use it to re-make a political constitution." 

Such protests as these are weighty. May they weigh ! 



In the Nonconformist attack on the Education Act of 
1902, the charge was made against that measure that it 
derived its inspiration from " the Bishops " and Convoca- 
tion, and was marked by hostility to the Board schools. 
As has been shown, it was absurd on the face of it to 
argue that an Act for which the principal sponsors were 
Mr. Balfour (a Presbyterian), Mr. Chamberlain (a Uni- 
tarian), and the Duke of Devonshire (one of the broadest 
of Churchmen), was the bantling of the Episcopal Bench. 
All the same, I could never quite understand on what 
grounds the ecclesiastical leaders of the English Church 
should not be allowed some voice in reference to the educa- 
tion of English children, unless, indeed, it be a high 
Nonconformist principle that those who have done most for 
popular education are precisely those who should be 
allowed the least say on that subject. Certainly after 
having warned off the Bishops from the educational field, 
Nonconformists are asserting their own will in a tone the 
emphasis of which is in inverse proportion to their record 
of voluntary educational service. The Nonconformist 
members of Parliament consider it quite reasonable that 
they should sketch out a plan on which Mr. McKenna 
may frame his Education Bill. It was quite proper on the 
part of Mr. McKenna, and a proof of high impartiality, for 
him to declare that he should come to denominationalists, 
not with an olive branch, but " with a sword." When he 
professed his " hatred " of the denominational system that 
profession did not show his inability to do it justice in 
his forthcoming legislation, but proved to Nonconformist 
minds how admirably he was fitted to sit as a judge on a 
system against which he had declared himself violently 
prejudiced. Mr. Balfour must not associate with such 
questionable company as the bishops' of the Established 
Church, but Mr. McKenna was quite justified in making 
a partisan speech to a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon gather- 
ins: in a London Nonconformist Chapel. The Episcopal 
Bench must have little or no say on so extraneous a sub- 


ject as national education, but the clerics of the Free 
Church Council may rightly assume to have a commanding 
influence in shaping the features and deciding the fortunes 
of the latest Education Bill. 

A Blow at the Church of England. 

Mr. Birrell, speaking to his constituents after the re- 
jection of his bill in 1906, said that he thought he had 
claims on the sympathy of Roman Catholics and Jews, 
for it was to please them that he had introduced his 
famous— or, if they liked, his infamous — Clause four. 
This striking admission shows that a Nonconformist 
Minister of the Crown, the son of a Baptist preacher, 
may without naming those two religious! bodies, deli- 
berately devise his bill in such a way as to offer them 
specially favourable terms, thus virtually discriminating 
against the Church of England. On similar lines run 
the provisions! of Mr. McKenna's bill in reference to single- 
school areas. Here the effect, and presumably the in- 
tention, is to strike a great blow at the Church of Eng- 
land village schools without seriously affecting the schools 
of other bodies. The only difference isi that Mr. Birrell 
conferred a favour on Roman Catholics and Jews of which 
Churchmen could not largely avail themselves, while Mr. 
McKenna strikes a blow which falls almost entirely on 
Anglican shoulders. To practically shut out the Church 
of England from advantageous termsi to which others 
have access, as Mr. Birrell proposed, and to inflict damage 
on that Church, from which others are exempt, as Mr. 
McKenna proposes, are both equally acts of persecution 
And this unequal treatment is offered by the party of 
religious equality 

Although the bill has been vigorously condemned by 
individual Roman Catholics, vet the Irish members in 
the House of Commons maintain a discreet silence, and 
the attitude of Archbishop Bourne is comparatively calm, 
not to say expectant. There can be little doubt that 
bargainings and concessions in that quarter are still to 
come. It will be difficult for Mr. McKenna to devise a plan 
for urban schools which will injure Church of England 


schools whilst sparing other schools in a similar manner 
to his way with the country schools. Perhaps in the end 
special treatment of the Roman Catholics will be expressly 
proposed, a course for which the Prime Minister and Mr. 
Morley have in the past declared. 

Lord Stanley of Alderley, speaking at Manchester a 
few days after the introduction of Mr. McKenna's bill, 
indicated his willingness to consent to special terms for 
the Roman Catholics, a policy which he recommended as 
a minority member of the Royal Commission of Education 
about twenty years ago. His words were : " The Roman 
Catholics were a separate community, and if they would 
let us have our public schools he should not object to their 
maintaining schools with a definite Catholic atmosphere. 
But if they chose to pull in with the Established Church — 
well, when the Established Church came down, somebody 
else would have to come with it." 

Lord Stanley, with a touch of that cynicism which is 
not always absent from hisi public utterances, frankly 
treated Mr. McKenna's money proposals as an inducement 
to unfaithfulness to religious preferences. He said : 
"This bill would on the average throughout the country 
give a relief to the ratepayers equivalent to two- 
pence in the pound. When people understood that he 
did not think they would be very much pleased with those 
who said that for the sake of the Apostles' Creed and the 
Catechism they must refuse this boon." 

In another part of his speech he spoke of " going to the 
electors on the question of whether they would like their 
rates to be relieved at the expense of a little Catechism." 

The British Weekly sees nothing wrong in the offer of 
this bribe, which it calls " a shot between wind and water 
which will tell." To me it seems another act of Noncon- 
formist persecution. As one paper well puts it, to attempt 
"to get rid of a system which the Government considers 
objectionable (but which has been conscientiously adopted 
by a considerable section of the people) by bribing with 
money which is at any rate partly their own, those who 
will abandon it, and by mulcting of money also partlv 
their own, those who refuse to do so, is a course which is 


neither fair nor'likely to commend itself to the good sense 
of the people." If a man accepts a bribe so offered he 
feels mean ; if he refuses it he feels wronged. Moral 
degradation or financial injustice are the choice offered 
by the bill. Persecution is involved in the offer of such 

A teacher who spoke at the same Liberal meeting as 
Lord Stanley of Alderley revealed his anti-Anglican bias 
in a remarkably crude way. He actually implied that the 
views of Church teachers must not count, but only those of 
Council school teachers. I quote from the report of the 
Manchester Guardian : " Mr. J. Parish, speaking as a 
teacher, said he regretted that the National Union of 
Teachers did not give much support to the bill. He asked 
his hearers not to pay too much attention to the opinion 
of the Union, because it was composed largely of Church 
of England teachers, and quite recently large numbers of 
Roman Catholic teachers had joined it." Obviously if 
Mr. Farish could have his way with the National Union 
of Teachers it would in honesty be bound to change its 
name to the JJonconformist Union of Teachers. 

Is the Bill of Welsh Extraction? 

We know that the contracting-out clauses of the bill 
were suggested to Mr. McKenna by the Nonconformist 
members of the House of Commons, but the drastic regu- 
lations in reference to single-school areas seem to me 
to suggest a Welsh origin. Of course Mr. McKenna is 
himself a, Welsh member, but another and more influ- 
ential Welsh member, Mr. Lloyd George, may possibly 
be the father of the measure. Certainly the bill if car- 
ried would at once strike a great blow at Anglican rural 
schools in Wales, gratify his friends and colleagues of 
the Free Church Council, and also cover up the traces of 
the " Welsh Revolt " which has proved quite as embarras- 
sing to its friends as to its foes. 

Contrast the generous and liberal spirit in which School 
Boards, with a denominational majority, developed be- 
tween 1870 and 1902 the Board school system, which was 
not their particular choice of schools, with the petty 


persecuting spirit which Welsh Nonconformists displayed 
towards the denominational schools which the Act of 
1902 placed partly under their influence. Speaking in 
March, 1903, Mr. Lloyd George siaid that he "wanted the 
Councils to take the denominational school time-tables 
into their own hands. Don't let the managers draft it, 
but let the Councils so draft it as to permit a short in- 
terval to elapse before the school proceeded to the reli- 
gious instruction. Let all the children go out for a few 
minutes. Then let those who preferred Catechism to play 
return for the religious instruction, while their play-fel- 
lows would be free to continue their own play. He had no 
doubt that the children would have such regard for Apos- 
tolic succession as would draw them back to the School 
while the wicked went away bird-nesting." 

The Vioe-Chairman of the Glamorgan County Council, 
at the Llandrindod Conference, said : " Religious educa- 
tion might be given in the last half-hour of morning 
school." (Laughter.) " There would be a general reaching 
for hats and coats at half-past eleven," said Mr. Hughes, 
amid laughter. {Manchester Guardian, April 6th, 1904.) 
Mr. McKenna in placing denominational teaching in 
single-school areas outside school hours has, by making 
it a sort of punishment lesson, even gone beyond the 
spirit of these flippant Welsh utterances. Such remarks 
as I have quoted show that it is possible to profess the 
principles of religious equality whilst aiming to employ 
the machinery of administration for partisan purposes. 
Even the cry of " No tests for teachers " is, in Wales, 
largely unreal, for, as the Bishop of St. Asaph stated 
without contradiction, the caucus makes secret inquiries 
as to candidates, and furnishes instructions to their party 
on the appointing committee. 

The Rev. J. P Lewis, in his able pamphlet on " The 
Hoodwinking of Wales," gives (page 41) a few statistics 
on the point. He mentions that under Welsh School 
Boards there were 2,133 Nonconformist teachers to 785 
Church, and that in the Bangor diocese, out of 202 head 
teachers, only 32 were Church teachers and 170 Noncon- 
formist. About sixteen years ago the late Rev. H. P. 


Hughes publicly Recused the authorities of a certain Welsh 
University College of harsh conduct towards a lady relative 
of his, assigning as the cause, in his opinion, of their 
unfair treatment that she was a Churchwoman. I do not 
go into the merits of the question. The significant 
feature in the case is the fact that he, a Welshman and 
Nonconformist, should sincerely believe influential Welsh 
Nonconformists capable of persecuting a Churchwoman 
for her religious opinions. It is possible to have pro- 
fessions of religious toleration on the lips and the prin- 
ciples of religious intolerance in the heart. 

I do not here propose to discuss the Education Bill in 
detail. The masterly review of the Bishop of Manchester 
seems to me as unanswerable as was 1 his letter against the 
anti-brewer agitation. In that case, as in this, he has 
been assailed witlh misrepresentations! andi abuse. In 
the local fight it turned out that the people of Manchester 
were on his side. I believe that in this national fight 
the people of England are on his side. 

Nonconformist opinion is by no means unanimousi in 
favour of the bill. The Rev. S. Cooper, a Wesleyan 
minister, writes to the Methodist Recorder, in reference 
to the injustice Mr. McKenna's bill would inflict on 
Churchmen : " To shut them out of their own schools, 
not to allow them to have their own religion taught to 
their own children by the public teachers, when they will 
be required to pay the Education rate, seems to me un- 
fair." The other quotation is from a speech addressed 
to the Free Church Council at their recent meeting at 
Southport by Mi'. Stead : " To my thinking we of the 
Free Churches occupy a. position which is absolutely 
illogical, and, that being so, I do not have the same con- 
fidence that some have that the attempt to turn one kind 
of Christianity that we do not like out of school in order 
to put a Christianity we like into school in its place is 
likely to succeed." 

Nothing more reveals the weakness of the Nonconfor- 
mist case in reference to Mr. MoKenna's treatment of the 
single-school areia- question than the deplorable logic 
employed by the Christian World (March 5th), in it« 


attack on the position of the Bishop of Manchester. Dr. 
Knox is therein charged with inconsistency because in 
1900 he supported Cowper-Temple teaching in the Bir- 
mingham Board Schools. If he had at the same time 
advocated the surrender of Church schools, so that this 
CWper-Temple teaching might also be taught in them, 
there would be some point in the critic's contention. What 
is the best possible under Board school conditions is not 
necessarily the best possible under other conditions. The 
other point objected to is the Bishop's statement as to 
" the appropriation of Church schools in rural districts 
by the local authority without rent or other payments." 
The writer maintains that this is not so, because the 
Church is to have the use of its own building, cleaned, 
warmed, and lighted, on Saturday and Sunday, and for 
a short time before or after regular school hours for in- 
struction in the disestablished religion. We have heard 
of the man who took his neighbour's goose but magnani- 
mously sent him the giblets. The act did not win much 
gratitude. The writer even stated that the Church will 
have its parish meetings " run at the public expense," 
whereas for five nights in the week the parochial work, 
with its varied evening meetings, will be turned into the 
street, and would require hired rooms elsewhere if pro- 
curable. Is this minus quantity also a boon? Finally, the 
writer states that the clergyman is not prepared to keep 
Ins ordination vow to feed Christ's lambs, but " wants the 
State to do it for him." Those of us who have not quite 
lived in a cupboard know pretty well what proportion the 
voluntary personal labours and sacrifices of the Anglican 
clergy in the cause of elementary education bear to those 
of the Nonconformist ministers. On the whole one may 
fairly retort on this writer the charge he makes against 
the Bishop of Manchester in the same article when he 
says, "Those of us who watch his polemical utterances 
know him to be none too scrupulous in his methods of 
argument and none too careful as to consistency." 

Nonconformists should be the last to talk of consistency 
on the education question, for their attitude for the last 
fifty years has been one long wobble. Even now they are 


hopelessly divided at heart. In March, 1907, the President 
of the Free Church Council declared that if the Govern- 
ment proposed a system of secular education it would be 
impossible to carry a vote against it in that assembly. Yet 
in March, 1908, the same Council " unanimously " sup- 
ported the proposal to make Cowper-Temple teaching 
universal. Liberationism voted ifor the establishment 
and endowment of religion by the State, passive resisters 
imposed enforced contributions for religious teaching to 
which hundreds of thousands conscientiously object. That 
Mr. McKenna's bill involved the establishment of religion 
in the schools seems to have been felt by the Free Church 
Council, for they recorded their " firm belief in the prin- 
ciples of religious equality and the freedom of all churches 
from State patronage and control." The old phrase used 
to be the freedom of religion, which would scarcely stand 
in view of the proposed establishment and endowment of 
London County Council religion. But why not drop the 
farce involved in the phrase " religious equality " 1 

The British Weekly (March 12th) points out to its friends 
the contrast between the views of the older and modern 
Nonconformistis on the education question : " English 
Nonconformity in the present day is largely influenced by 
two beliefs, from both of which we dissent. The first is 
that it is the business of the State to teach the Bible in 
the schools. The second is that it is just and fair to all 
denominations that this State teaching shall consist of what 
is called simple Bible teaching. These propositions were 
rejected by the older Nonconformists." 

The truth is that their present attitude, as Dr. Massie 
has candidly owned, is a matter of tactics rather than prin- 
ciple. He ' tells us that he believes in the " secular 
thorough," but that if Nonconformists went to the electors 
on those lines, "Mr. Balfour would sweep the country." 
So he puts the card of secular education up his sleeve for 
the present, and out of his great conscientiousness! plays 
the card of Cbwper-Templeism. For is it not the mark 
of a man of conscience of the modern type first and fore- 
most to win the game? 

Let us suppose the game won, and Cowper-Templeism 


universally established at the public expense, how would 
men like Dr. Massie defend it against the attacks of 
agnostic passive resisters ? I am supposing no impossible 
or improbable case, for such attacks have already begun. 
I quote an extract from the Rationalist Review for March, 
1908, as an illustration. 

An Agnostic Passive Resister. 

The article is headed " In the Police Court." I give 
the principal portions verbatim, the italics, however, are 
mine. The writer begins with a reference to the contract 
between himself as a solitary Agnostic protester and the 
crowd of Nonconformist Passive Resisters with whom 
he was for the moment associated. " It all looked so like 
a Chapel meeting. I felt like Judas among the Apostles. 
The splendid serenity of ray associates impressed my 
agnostio sense. They had a Miltonic port and a Crom- 
wellian glance. At least one imagined that that was the 
form their self-consciousness assumed. There is no doubt 
that the ordinary Free Church Passive Resister does verily 
fancy himself as a swordsman of the Lord and of 

" The Chapelite illusion was fairly complete when three 
most respectable magistrates entered the Court and took 
their seats at the Bench. Then a voice, pitched in the 
Methodist tone, which is so indicative of combined devo- 
tion and self-confidence, addressed the Bench. I 
cannot help the remark, in passing, that I doubt if Lord 
Cecil or the Dean made the observations attributed to 
them, but the veracious Nonconformist must bear the 
responsibility of his quotations." 

" A second Cromwellian speech having enlivened the 
policemen, the presiding magistrate was about to close 
the case when I begged for a hearing, as I had been no 
party to the arrangement just carried out (by which two 
speakers stated the case for the whole group of Noncon- 
formist Passive Resisters). Permission being granted, I 
said that. / strenuously and conscientiously objected 

to Simple Bible Teaching in Council Schools 
that I had heard a Bible Lesson ijicen in each of the 


Leicester Council' Schools, and was perfectly aware of what 
ivas taught, that in my opinion such lessons were practically 
Nonconformist in method, they were sectarian, they were 
Philistine, they were unscientific, and in some respects 
morally unsound, though I agreed that some of the moral 
elements in this instruction were commendable 

The writer of the article continues : '' Not one of the 
Cromwellians ventured to speak to me, as, bearing our 
heroic honours thick upon us, we left the court. I had 
followed their eminent example of passive resistance, and 
not a word of praise would they deign to bestow on my 
humble effort. Apparently they were taken aback with 
amazement that any citizens other than themselves should 
object to pay for an unjust system of religious instruction. 
They had gone on for several years denouncing priestcraft 
in the State-aided schools and at the same time supporting 
a plan of Bible teaching peculiarly harmonious with the 
Nonconformist taste. Such a procedure violated their own 
oft-repeated principle that the State should not patronise 
any special form of religion. The hypocritical attitude of 
the Dissenters oti the Education question will form one of the 
stock examples of British stupidity in the pages of the 
future historians of our social life, just as to-day we point 
to the South Sea Bubble as an instance of popular credulity 
in the eighteenth century. We shall soon see whether Mr. 
McKenna is prepared once again to delay our educational 
progress in order to feed the vanity of the Dissenters by the 
retention of their favoured method of Bible exposition." 

Against such attacks as the one just quoted the Free 
Church Council would be defenceless. For while denomi- 
nationalists can point to their denominational contribution 
as a set-off to their denominational teaching, the advocates 
of universal Bible teaching propose to make no special 
money contribution, but force all, believers and unbelievers 
alike, to support, equally with themselves, their favoured 
form of religious instruction. Denominationalists have 
never admitted the right of a dissentient fraction to veto 
the wishes of the majority, but Nonconformists have pro- 
claimed the principle of veto in its most absolute form, 
and asserted it to the mischievous and anarchic extent of 
passive resistance. 


In so doing they have forged a weapon which, after 
it has achieved the result of abolishing the religious 
teaching acceptable to Churchmen, can be used by Agnos- 
tics with fatal effect against the Cowper-Templeism 
favoured by Nonconformists. Mr. Blatchford says that 
Christianity is not true, and he has many thousands of 
convinced and enthusiastic followers. One can imagine 
the play which an able writer like the editor of the 
Cl-arion would make with Dr. Massie whilst he applied 
the sacred principle of conscientious veto to his own case, 
and asserted the right of access of his followers to the 
teaching profession undisturbed by any test of fitness for 
teaching Cowper-Templeism. On which horn of the 
dilemma would Dr. Massie choose to be impaled? Would 
he disregard the protests of Agnostic passive resisters and 
so give the lie to his innermost convictions on the subject 
by persisting in their persecution, or would he say, "I 
was always with you, and now that Anglican teaching is 
out of the way, I will help you to oust Simple Bible Teach- 
ing," thus betraying Churchmen who had trusted to the 
stability of that form of religious instruction. Not only 
is Cowper-Templeism uncertain in its' content, it has in 
itself the seeds of its own dissolution. 

Outsiders see in the regulations as to single-school 
areas an attempt to secure predominance for Nonconfor- 
mists. Father Naish, preaching at the Church of the Holy 
Name, said that " there was far more in the dispute than 
any question of the children ; there was a tussle for 
supremacy, a strong determination on the part of the 
members of the Free Churches to oust the parsons of the 
English Church from the pride of place and influence in 
English social life, especially in the country districts." 

If the proposals of Mr. McKenna as to single-school 
areas are carried out without modification we shall surely 
have heard the last of the oft-repeated tale of the perse- 
cution of Nonconformists by Anglicans in past centuries, 
for Nonconformists will then enjoy the unenviable distinc- 
tion of being the only twentieth-century persecutors. The 
Bishop of Manchester has pointed out that the bill does 
not state when the proposed " transfer " of rural schools 


is to take place* Does not this new Act of Uniformity, 
with its virtual ejectments, point to St. Bartholomew's 
Day as the appropriate date? Or did the Minister of 
Education feel a presentiment that his bill would never 
become an Act? If so, one may make a harmless play 
upon his name and asking "Where will the provisions 
of Mr. McKenna's bill come into operation?" supply the 
answer " Kennaquhair." 


There is a strong family likeness between the Educa- 
tion Bill of Mr. McKenna and the Licensing Bill of Mr. 
Asquith. Both represent reactions against Mr. Balfour's 
legislation- — the one meaning that the Education Act of 
1902 is not to be allowed a fair trial, the other that Mr. 
Balfour's licensing measure is to share the same fate. In 
Mr. McKenna's bill there is a persecuting element arising 
from religious animus, in Mr. Asquith's there is a per- 
secuting element springing from political animus. As the 
one, though nominally educational, has little of education 
in it, so the other, though professedly in the interests of 
temperance, seems little likely to advantage that cause. 
What a disinterested outsider like myself desires in a 
Licensing Bill is the maximum check to intemperance com- 
bined with the minimum of material injury to brewers 
and publicans. The new Licensing Bill seems admirably 
adapted to effect the maximum of harm to the licensing 
trade with the minimum of benefit to temperance. Tee- 
totalers admit in so many words that any measure must, 
in order to pass, have the moral support of many men who 
are not teetotalers ; yet they advocate a measure which 
seems more unfavourable to the licensing trade than to 
intemperance, and which scarcely commends! itself to the 
publio conscience by the character and tendency of its main 

Before referring to some of the provisions of the Licens- 
ing Bill I should like to enter my protest against the 
offensive language employed by some professing Chris- 
tians in relation to those engaged in the liquor traffic. 
The other day a Nonconformist minister called publicans 


" a crowd of pig-faced men." Such language does more 
harm to Nonconformity than to publicans ; worst of all, 
it discredits religion, and gives point to the Agnostic 
sneer at "Christian manners." In the following para- 
graph, which I extract from the Daily News of March 5th, 
we see teetotal abuse producing active protest. " Lectur- 
ing at Tiverton, Mr. Tennyson Smith characterised the 
liquor traffic as ' a mean, vile, despicable, diabolical, 
devilish, damnable trade.' He expressed amazement at 
people being prepared to ' bow down and scrape ' to a 
local brewer for the gift of a clock tower. The lecturer 
was pelted with missiles, and it was subsequently announced 
that his mission was abandoned." The incident supplies 
an instructive example of the bitter spirit displayed by 
teetotalers, and shows how by .affronting the public con- 
science they throw the sympathy of the people on the side 
they attack. Let us hope that the lesson administered to 
Mr. T. Smith by the people of Tiverton will not be lost 
upon him. He should take a thought and mend his 
manners, for abuse is no argument. 

Mr. Asquith in his brilliant defence of the time-limit 
principle was careful not to mention what had been so 
clearly laid down by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bram- 
well in the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield, namely, that the 
justices could not act arbitrarily, that it was not in their 
power to repeal the law which permitted the sale of drink 
without just and reasonable cause, and that the absolute 
discretion entrusted to them by the legislature was to be 
judicially and discreetly exercised, within the limits which 
an honest man competent for the discharge of his duty 
should set himself. These considerations invalidate Mr. 
Asquith's argument. Let us bring the matter to a local 
test. Here in Manchester Sir Thomas Shann ably presides 
over the Licensing Committee. If Mr. Asquith is right, 
the Manchester justices could shut up all the licensed houses 
in the city at a stroke, but everybody realises, and no 
'>ne better than the justices themselves, that whatever 
the theory of the matter might be, they never had any 
such real power in practice. One consideration, which so 
far I have not seen mentioned in the discussion, shows 


that teetotalers themselves recognise this fact, namely, 
that by their advocacy of local veto as a separate and addi- 
tional measure, they admitted that the justices had not 
before Mr. Balfour's Act the sweeping powers of total 
local prohibition which Mr. Asquith's argument implies. 
Misconduct, indeed, was not the only cause for which the 
justices could refuse renewal, but it was necessary that 
they should have some good and sufficient reasons for their 
decision. Their discretion was to be judicial, not 

Mr. Asquiths second leading argument also seems un- 
sound. He maintained that there was no property right 
in the renewal of a licence because, under the Act of 1904, 
when licences were refused the compensation money came, 
not from the State, but from the trade. But he loses sight 
of the fact that the licences with which the Act of 1904 
dealt were superfluous licences, and that measure was only 
intended to facilitate the extinction of such licences by 
enabling the justices in cases where all the houses were 
equally suitable, but too numerous, to compel those which 
Avere allowed^ to remain open to compensate those which 
were closed. This was a matter as it were within the trade 
itself, with which the public had only a secondary con- 
cern, the presumption being that the increased trade at 
the surviving houses repaid them for their quota towards 
the extinction of those suppressed. But it is quite another 
matter to argue from this, as Mr. Asquith does, that 
there is no property in licences which are not superfluous 
nor otherwise unsuitable. 

Let us suppose that we have reached the end of the 
proposed fourteen years' limit, when all superfluous and 
otherwise unsuitable houses will have been closed. Under 
the law as it was before 1904 the justices would have no 
ground for refusing renewal. If the right of renewal is to 
be destroyed by the fresh legislation of 1908, a new situa- 
tion is created which bears no resemblance to that contem- 
plated by the Act of 1904, a case in which the licence can- 
not justly be extinguished without the payment of adequate 
compensation by the State. 

The question of a time limit has nothing to do with 


temperance reform. It is purely a matter of money. 
The licensing trade can be so regulated as to minimise 
any influence for mischief incidental to it without resort 
to a time limit. Mr. John Morley, in speaking of the 
opium trade, reflected on those who wished "to be vir- 
tuous at other people's expense." The phrase applies 
here. It is noteworthy that opposition to the Licensing 
Bill comes from not a few friends of temperance. The 
honorary treasurer of the Birmingham branch of the 
Church of England Temperance Society has resigned his 
position ■and severed his connection with the Society 
on account of the Licensing Bill. He says : " I am quite 
unable to concur in supporting what I feel to be a most 
unjust measure." A Liberal member of Parliament, Mr. 
L. J. Tillett, says : " In my opinion, the bill is far too 
drastic; indeed, so stringent are its terms that it will 
alienate the sympathy of unprejudiced persons who have 
the cause of real temperance at heart. In my opinion, 
clubs are much too lightly handled in the bill. There 
is nothing in it which will do the cause of temperance any 
real good." Mr. W.T. Stead told the Free Church Council 
at Southport that " he hoped they would provide something 
to take the place of the 30,000 public-houses that would 
be closed. The public-house was the centre of social life, 
where people could chat with their neighbours. If they did 
not provide a substitute the last state of this land would 
be worse than the first. He felt he should shock 

them, but he would tell them that he was against the 
abolition of the barmaid. The removal of woman from 
any sphere of social activity demoralised that sphere. 
They should not let people regard them as sour-visaged 
people who would deprive other people of all their en- 
joyment. It was so easy to be virtuous at other people's 

To fix a rigid proportion of licence-reduction for the 
country seems inexpedient. The Welsh correspondent of 
the Christian World states (March 5th), that under this 
provision the licensed houses in Haverfordwest would be 
reduced from 56 to 9; Carmarthen, from 83 to 14; Car- 
digan, from 40 to 5; Monmouth, from 54 to 7 ; Ponty- 



pool, from 48 to 9 ; Usk, from 34 to 6 ; Brecon, from 
46 to 8; and Cowbridge, from 21 to 2. These figures 
are startling. It is no doubt undesirable that public- 
houses should be too thick on the ground in a town, 
but it would involve moral evil if people were too thick 
on the ground inside the public-houses left surviving after 
such drastic and inelastic reductions. Such results as 
I have just indicated were not unforeseen by Mr. Asquith, 
for in introducing his bill he mentioned cases where nine 
out of every ten houses would be closed. It would scarcely 
conduce to temperance or the orderly conduct of each, 
tenth house in such districts for the customers of the other 
nine to be packed in the one surviving, nor would it be 
edifying for a queue to be formed in the street of custo- 
mers waiting their turn of admission like the files at 
theatre doors. 

The same writer goes on to show that under the bill 
licences may be increased. He says: "As in England, a 
very unexpected result of the bill becoming law would, 
however, be the possible actual increase in the number 
of existing licences I In some of the new industrial areas, 
licensing magistrates have been averse to the multipli- 
cation of licensed premises, the consequence being that the 
existing number is actually below what would then be the 
recognised statutory number of licences. For instance, 
Mountain Ash might be increased from 37 to 41 ; New 
Tredegar might have its licences doubled, while at Bar- 
goed the present number might be trebled !" If, as seems 
likely, the bill will tend to augment licences in these 
districts, and so rigorously curtail them in others, as to 
either lead to rapid " soaking " in the public-house or 
to the formation of clubs, the total effect will not be in 
the direction of temperance. Moreover, many impartial 
men deem it unjust at the end of a time-limit to subject 
the remaining licences to local option, so that any locality 
may say that all remaining houses in its district shall 
be wiped out of existence without compensation. It is 
impossible that the reasonable requirements of the public 
should be met without sufficient security being given to 
holders of licences. In the absence of such security how 


can it be expected that capital will be risked in the build- 
ing and furnishing, say, of great hotels? To annihilate 
such capital without compensation would be an act of 
national unrighteousness. 

Canon Hicks, writing in the Alliance News for March 
12th, exhorts his Alliance friends in the words of St. Paul : 
" Quit you like men, be strong " (I. Cor. xvi., 13). Might 
I suggest that he should have included in his quotation 
the following verse, which would have afforded a much- 
needed hint to teetotal combatants as to the spirit and 
method of Christian controversy. That verse reads : " Let 
all your things be done with charity." In so far as the 
supporters of the Licensing bill are actuated by the single 
desire to check the evils of drunkenness, they will succeed, 
as they deserve to succeed. In so far as they merely wish 
to strike a vengeful blow at the representatives of a hated 
trade, they will fail, as they deserve to fail. 

The words quoted by Canon Hicks remind one of a still 
earlier occasion on which they were employed (I. Samuel, 
iv.). There was war between God's chosen people and 
the Philistines, and the priestly sons of Eli had the Ark 
of the Lord borne into the camp of the Israelites as a sure 
pledge of victory But although they had the Ark of the 
Lord with them, they had not the Lord of the Ark. The 
Philistines heartened one another with the words " Quit 
yourselves like men, and fight," and won a great victory, 
the news of which brought death to the aged Eli and birth 
to the hapless Ichabod. The #lory was departed. 

Is the struggle of to-day over the Licensing Bill destined 
to furnish a historical parallel? Certainly "its supporters 
claim to represent God's chosen people. Is not the Ark 
of the Lord in their midst, and are not their foes those 
uncircumcised Philistines the publicans? All this may be 
so, and yet if the eternal principles of righteousness are 
violated by their proposals, they may fail. The struggle 
will be severe, for if Canon Hicks and hia friends say 
to one another, " Quit yourselves like men, be strong," the 
other side take as their motto, " Quit yourselves like men, 
and fight." 


Some Band of Hope Methods. 
Sweets and Bitters. 

Much was heard in the Mayoralty controversy about 
an individual manager of a public-house who gave sweets 
to the children who came to his place to purchase drink 
for their parents. The practice was undoubtedly wrong, 
and not to be permitted. As a matter of fact, it was 
stopped as soon as the owner heard of it, and has not 
been resumed. It was an exceptional case. 

Some of those who condemned, and justly condemned, 
the action just described, would probably be very much 
astonished if they were challenged to give an account 
to the public of the influence exerted by themselves on 
the children who come under their training in Bands of 
Hope and elsewhere. They would resent such a. challenge 
as an unwarranted imputation, and declare that their 
influence on childhood was an unmixed good — an influ- 
ence entirely free from anti-social tendencies. Personally 
I am by no means sure that all the methods employed in 
connection with Bands of Hope will bear scrutiny. Sir 
Lauder Brunton recently stated that the exaggerated 
teaching about alcohol given in Bands of Hope did harm 
by teaching children to despise their parents. To my 
mind still more mischief is done by teaching children to 
hate and despise the brewer and publican as if they had 
created the drink trade and were solely responsible for 
the drunkenness of the drunkard. Let me give an illus- 
tration. The Rev. S. Chadwick, editor of the Joyful 
News, says (August 15th, 1907) : " It was Charles Garrett 
who first awakened my interest in the work of temper- 
ance. I was only a Band of Hope boy when I heard him 
say there were more public-houses in Liverpool than we 
could see stars in the heavens ; and oh, how he pleaded 
for helpers 1 against the soul-destroying and devilish traffic ! 
I wept with the rest, and with my boyish fist clenched 
I vowed in the name of God, if ever I got a chance to 
strike I would hit hard. I thank God for a place in the 
fighting line, and as I have been able I have smitten with- 
out fear or faltering." Now the Rev. Charles Garrett was 


personally one of the best and kindest of men, yet he is 
herein reported as telling a group of young children that 
there were more public-houses in Liverpool than they 
could see stars in the heavens. Was this statement true? 
It was not. Have Christian ministers a licence to say 
what is not true when speaking of the licensed trade? 
They have not. It cannot be right to fight the Lord's 
battle with the devil's weapons. The cause of truth should 
be built on truth and truth alone. Yet Mr. Garrett doubt- 
less thought he was doing God service by stating what was 
not true, just as Mr. Chadwick reproduces the false state- 
ment without any apparent sense of its moral obliquity 

Consider, too, the effect on a susceptible boy such as Mr. 
Chadwick then was. He weeps, clenches his fist, and vows 
to "strike hard." Strike at what? His childish mind 
would pass by such abstractions as drunkenness or the 
drink traffic, and concentrate its hatred on that concrete 
object the publican. Common sense would suggest the 
thought that as the English people called the drink traffic 
into being, and kept it going, it was not just to make a 
scapegoat of one class for the sins of all classes. Instead of 
this, hatred of the publican is sown in the minds of young 
children. That the attitude of Charles 1 Garrett is repro- 
duced in Samuel Chadwick we see from the above extract. 
If further proof were needed, it might be found in another 
portion of the same issue, where the editor says " The 
drink traffic is of the devil. It is engineered from hell, and 
is the greatest enemy of God and man." 

Another Wesleyan minister, the Rev. C. W Andrews, 
in his letters to young men and women, contributed to the 
Methodist Recorder, argues quite calmly and dispassion- 
ately against raffles at bazaars in which religious people 
are interested, and in reference to betting mildly says that 
'' the feverish, reckless gambling of the present day is 
a symptom of a deep and deadly disease, and we must not 
be content to get rid of the symptom, but must try to 
run- the disease." But when the same writer comes to 
speak on the licensing question we have such stuff as the 
following : " Every public-house at present is a pest. 
They reek with disease. Then the public-house 


is a nest of imnforality I really believe that the 

spiritual hostg of wickedness, the rulers of the darkness of 
this world, are actually there. I feel it myself. 
It is a case where I have to say: 'Get thee behind me, 
Satan.' I sometimes feel as if, but for this, a few visits 
might turn me into a dare-devil beast. Ought we to go on 
tolerating a gigantic plague-spot like this? Oh, young 
Methodists, for the love of Christ, be politicians. Give 
your eye to the Government, and watch for the Licensing 

After this shrewd touch of political partisanship Mr. 
Andrews goes on : " Have you read ' The Cry of the Chil- 
dren ' 1 When I read it I broke off to pray And very 
slowly and deliberately, alone in my study, I said, over 
and over again, ' O, God, in Thy mercy and Thy wrath, 
damn the drink traffic." Such language seems to me not 
merely anti-social in its implied teaching of class hatred, 
but also to breathe an anti-Christian spirit. If the utter- 
ances of these two prominent Wesleyan ministers in two 
Wesleyan papers are to be taken as a fair specimen of the 
bitter spirit Jnf used into the minds of the young in con- 
nection with Bands of Hope and other temperance organisa- 
tions, there is urgent need for a revisal of the methods 
employed in such work. If the distribution of sweets to 
children on a small scale by one individual publican was 
a thing to be stopped as an offence against society, much 
more is the wholesale infusion of bitterness into the minds 
of the young a thing to be stopped as a greater offence 
against society If the aims of Band of Hope workers are 
Christian, their spirit and methods should be Christian too. 

Paragraphs appear from time to time in the religious 
press lamenting that so many Band of Hope children fall 
away from the pledge in their teens, so that the effect of the 
work on adult teetotalism appears small. Why is this so? 
Partly, I think, because the statements made and the 
pictures drawn at Band of Hope gatherings are, so over- 
strained and exaggerated that the shock of surprise which 
comes when the facts of real life are faced drives former 
members to the opposite extreme. Finding that the pub- 
lican of flesh and blood is not the ogre he has been pictured, 


they give him the sympathy which most Englishmen accord 
to men who, they feel, have been unfairly treated. This 
air of unreality and exaggeration in Band of Hope work 
goes far to account for the languid support it sometimes 
reoeives. At the recent annual meeting of the Lancashire 
and Cheshire Band of Hope Union attention was specially 
drawn to the fact that the Union's subscription list for 
Band of Hope work did not reach £500, or less than one- 
hundredth part of the sum spent in intoxicating drinks 
every day in the Union's area. If Band of Hope methods 
did not need overhauling, this striking disproportion 
would not exist. 

"Storming the Chancellor." 
'" Free Churches and Licensing." 

Under the above headings the Christian World, in ita 
issue of November 28th, 1907, gave an account of a depu- 
tation from the Free Church leaders to Mr. Asquith on 
the subject of Licensing Reform. The account is interest- 
ing and instructive because it shows that not even in inter- 
viewing a Cabinet Minister of the highest standing can 
Free Church leaders drop their personal and somewhat 
truculent tone. Their interview with Mr. Asquith was 
marked by features peculiar to the Free Churches— it was, 
as the Christian World puts it, a case of " Storming the 
Chancellor." Let us note a few of the self-conscious and 
personal touches which seem to be an inevitable element 
in Nonconformist utterances. The Christian World says : 
" It was curious to hear Dr. Harris hinting to the only 
Chancellor ever reared in. Nonconformity that the Free 
Churches were a body which he might have met before." 
One would think so indeed. Mr. Asquith met this gratui- 
tous flourish with the non-committal answer, " I have 
heard of them." Mrs. Price Hughes wa8 the only lady 
member of the deputation, the leader of which thought it 
necessary to assure the Chancellor that that lady " would 
not misbehave." Dr. Hanson forgot for the moment that 
he was supposed to be present in a representative capacity, 
and employed the pronoun of the first person singular. He 
wanted to see a reduction of licences, and, he added, " / 


am not prepared to wait." " We do not," he continued, 
" want any fiasco like the Education Bill. There was too 
much compromise in that." The report says that " Mr. 
Asquith lifted his eyebrows," and well he might, at this 
specimen of tact and courtesy. Dr. Hanson blundered on, 
" Excuse me exhorting you thus," whereupon the Chan- 
cellor grunted back the appropriate reply : " We are quite 
used to that." Dr. Hanson made a statement which I 
submit to the judgment of my readers : " The public- 
houses," he said, " were only kept open on Sundays for 
sots, as no respectable artisans would enter them." One 
might think that these escapades would have sufficed for 
a single member of the deputation, but Dr. Hanson con- 
tinued to be more amusing still. I give the Christian 
World report : " A delightful little passage of arms fol- 
lowed his interruption of a speaker — Dr. Hanson — who said 
he had heard rumours that the Government did not intend 
to deal firmly with the licensing question. Mr. Asquith: 
You must not believe all you read. Dr. Hanson : I did not 
read it. I heard it. Mr. Asquith: That is worse still. 
(Laughter.) Dr. Hanson : It was told me in strict confi- 
dence. Mr. Asquith : That is the worst of all. (Laughter.)" 
Who but a member of a Free Church Council deputation 
would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer he had " heard 
a rumour " that they intended to misbehave themselves, 
who but Dr. Hanson would proclaim to all England what 
had been told him " in strict confidence " 1 Wishing to be 
impressive, Dr. Hanson made himself ridiculous. 

The Rev. Silvester Home was introduced to the Chan- 
cellor as the " Prince Rupert of Nonconformity," a clash of 
associations which shocked Mr. Asquith's feeling for con- 
gruity of ideas. This gentleman, unlike Dr. Hanson, spoke 
to Mr. Asquith " in persuasive tones and with marked 
deference." One of his proposals — the abolition of bar- 
maids — has happily little chance of acceptance. The path 
of genuine temperance reform does not lie along the lines 
of class persecution. Our object should be, not to dehuma- 
nise the public-house, but to elevate it. 

The leader of the deputation. Dr. Rendel Harris, said 
that " no more gifts should be made to those horse-leeches' 


daughters — the liquor traffickers." The reference obviously 
is to Proverbs xxx. 15, which reads: "The horse-leech 
hath two daughters, crying, Give, give." It is difficult to 
imagine a more inappropriate reference. We all know 
how persistently Mr. Balfour's Licensing Act was misre- 
presented as a " Dole to the brewers and publicans," Mr. 
Arthur Chamberlain even going to the absurd length of 
stating that it conferred an added value of three hundred 
millions to the total licences of the country. This pro- 
phecy has been cast on the huge rubbish heap of exploded 
teetotal mis-statements, but it is equally foolish and unfair 
to represent a trade which is already heavily taxed, and 
only asks to be let alone, as if it were the one to raise the 
cry of " Give, give," as against the State. The suggestion 
of Mr. Home, a member of the deputation, that " some- 
thing like a system of high licence might benefit the Trea- 
sury," shows in what quarter the cry of " give " originates. 
The one remarkable feature of the deputation was the belief 
entertained by its members as to the moderation of their 
proposals. Dr. Harris said : " We are social reformers, 
pleading our own moderation." Mr. Lidgett asked for the 
reversal of the 1904 Act by the imposition of a time-limit, 
further limitation of hours on Sundays, total closing on 
election days, further protection of children, and the licens- 
ing of clubs. After this fairly stiff list he stated rather 
inconsistently that he did not ask for "heroic measures." 
His proposed measures of reform, although not " heroic," 
were, however, to be heroic enough to " remove the licens- 
ing question from the subjects for legislative consideration 
for many years." 

An impartial spectator, had he been present to speak in 
the name of justice, might possibly have told the Chan- 
cellor and his clerical deputation that they themselves re- 
presented the two daughters of the horse-leech rather than 
the interest suggested by the leader of the deputation. The 
Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his array of taxes, cries 
"Give, give," to the tune of about 150' millions a year, 
while ministers of religion, with their manifold appeals for 
funds, cry '' Give, give " to the extent of several millions 
annually. One has even heard of a cry of "Give, give," 


being raised in relation to an effort to collect the sum of 
a million guineas in one denomination alone over and above 
the ordinary contributions of its members. Of course there 
is nothing objectionable as such in the appeal of the Chan- 
cellor for taxes or the appeal of ministers of religion for 
financial support. Morals and the public weal are only con- 
cerned to ensure that the demand shall be reasonable and 
equitable in each case. The interests of the nation as a 
whole demand from the Chancellor that no class should be 
made the mark of spoliatory or vindictive legislation, just 
as the same interests demand that the financial pressure 
exerted by ministers of religion should not be so excessive 
as to interfere with the satisfaction of the ordinary social 
claims. Le^ me illustrate the latter point. A few months 
ago a will was proved under the terms of which the widow 
was bequeathed about one-twentieth of her late husband's 
estate, the great bulk of it going tojswell the funds of reli- 
gious and philanthropic societies. Of these, seven were 
named (of which a well-known Manchester institution was 
one), among which a large capital sum was to be equally 
divided. The share of any one of the seven, if invested in 
a* life annuity for the widow, would have produced an in- 
come larger than that vouchsafed to her by her late hus- 
band. This disproportionate giving has caused unfavour- 
able comments. We talk of a suttee in India, but there is 
a suttee of a widow's resources as well as of a widow's 
life. Money that is obtained by the invasion of a widow's 
means, that is watered by a widow's tears, and followed by 
a widow's just resentment, can scarcely prove a blessing to 
any good oause. The whole transaction bears too strong a 
resemblance to that " devouring of widows' houses" which 
Christ expressly condemned. 

Just as the cry of " Give, give," raised by ministers of 
religion elicited in the above case an excessive response 
which is not endorsed by the public conscience, so it may 
be possible for the Chancellor and his supporters in Par- 
liament to propose and carry through confiscatory legisla- 
tion which will be condemned by the mass of reasonable 
men. Such legislation, being based on injustice, could not 
prove a lasting settlement. The proposals of both Chan- 


cellor and deputation must sfemd to be judged by a. higher 
law than the law of the land, I mean the eternal principles 
of justice and right. 

Open Letter to 
The Right .Reverend the Lord Bishop of Manchester. 
You, my Lord, as one of the foremost educationists of 
the day, in coming to Manchester could scarcely fail to 
note the efficiency of the educational organisation of our 
city. Great authorities have borne witness to this un- 
doubted fact — among others, Lord Stanley of Alderley, 
Dean Welldon, and Dr. Macnamara. The last says: — 
'" In its efforts on behalf of education Manchester is second 
to no city in the empire. No city in the United Kingdom, 
not even' north of the Cheviots, can show a grander record, 
and no city possesses a system in which the various grades 
of schools are so thoroughly and scientifically linked to- 
gether." In securing this eminently satisfactory state of 
things the School Board of Manchester has in its sphere 
played no small part, and, to my mind, the present advan- 
tageous position of elementary education in this city 
appears as an inspiring example of the zeal and devotion, 
the loyalty and broad-mindedness which Manchester 
Churchmen brought to the work of the School Board. 
I will mention three typical laymen whose names are 
honoured as labourers in this field — Oliver Heywood, 
Herbert Birley, and George Milner. Among the clergy 
who took a prominent part in School Board work were the 
lute Dean Maclure, and one who justly ranks as one of the 
greatest educational experts in the country — I mean the 
Rev. Canon Nunn. To him, more than to any other man, 
is due the scheme of religious education which obtains in 
the Council schools, and under his chairmanship were 
taken the first steps in that reorganisation of evening 
instruction which has won for the city so much distinction 
in educational circles. It is far from my wish to strike 
a sectional note, but at a time when such scant justice is 
done to the actions and motives of denominationalists, it 
is well to point out that all the results obtained under the 
Manchester School Board were gained with a strong 


denominational majority in power. From 1870 to 1902 
between one and two millions of money were drawn from 
the Manchester rates for the promotion of the class of 
school preferred by undenominationalists. When, under 
the Act of 1902, denominationalists were admitted to some 
share of the rates towards which they so largely contri- 
buted, and from the benefit of Avhich they had so long 
been debarred, this step was represented not as the recti- 
fication of a grievance, but as the erection of a privilege, 
and passive resisters appeared on the scene. 

Not merely in building up a system of schools which 
was not the school of their choice, did Manchester Church- 
men display their breadth and liberality, but also in the 
bestowal of patronage Complaint is sometimes made by 
Nonconformists that they are excluded from the more 
lucrative posts in educational work. In Manchester there 
are three positions the emoluments: of which run into four 
figures ; they are all held by Nonconformists. Manchester 
denominationalists may then recall without shame their 
past record, which stands in such striking contrast to that 
made or being ^nade in some districts where the opposite 
party is in power. 

So far have Churchmen been from abusing their position 
to the detriment of the other side, that some of their 
number have been ready at every crisis to yield even on 
important points of principle. Either carried away by 
political prepossessions or through sheer timidity, or mis- 
led by a spurious liberality, or yielding to what they 
deemed the drift of the times, they have advised sur- 
render. It is your lordship's high function, at this period 
of crisis in national education, to lead those who are deter- 
mined that the claims of definite religious instruction to 
be one of the vital elements in primary education, shall 
not be unheard. But for you, and such as you, there would 
be great danger of the real wishes of English parents, and 
the real needs of English children, being disregarded in 
the matter. A highly-organised, active, and voiceful 
minority may, as things now stand, prevail against an 
apathetic and passive majority. In the House of Com- 
mons at the present time there are some two hundred 


Nonconformists, who are stout representatives of their 
own sectional view, while the majority of Churchmen 
sit on the same side of the House. This tends not to re- 
presentation, but to misrepresentation. 

Wherever one turns, one sees the true principle of re- 
presentation Largely falsified. Here it is the executive 
of the National Union of Teachers, with only five Volun- 
tary school teachers out of a membership of fifty, and 
not one from Lancashire ; there it is a handful of Socia- 
lists dominating a vastly larger body of trades unionists. 
At our very doors we have nine members of Parliament 
for Manchester and Salford, all on the side which was 
uniformly in a decided minority on the School Boards of 
the two towns from 1870 forwards. The fact is that in both 
what may be called electoral efficiency— the power to in- 
fluence the selection and election of members of Parlia- 
ment — and also in Parliamentary efficiency — the im- 
pact on Government and legislation of their members when 
elected, the friends of denominational schools are weaker 
than they should be. In your efforts to secure a juster 
correspondence between the wishes of English parents on 
matters of education and the decisions of Parliament, your 
lordship will offend powerful interests, encounter much 
opposition, and incur some opprobrium. But just as your 
letter on the Mayoralty question, despite the storm with 
which it was received by one section, proved to be in 
harmony with Manchester opinion, so in this larger ques- 
tion of national education the partisan attack upon your 
views may be followed by the endorsement of the masses. 

In his letter to the Manchester Guardian (March 3rd, 
1908), commenting on your criticism of Mr. M'Kenna's 
bill, Dr Goodrich stated that Nonconformists were " try- 
ui'T to forget" the oppression of such acts as the Schism 
Act. To remind us yet once again of a thing is a some- 
what odd way of trying to forget it, while to go back over 
19U years for a case of oppression shows that the Noncon- 
formist memory is as long as it is unforgiving. Instead 
of forgiving his Church brother seventy times seven sepa- 
rate offences committed against him as a Nonconformist 
of to-day, the latter reaps up on severity times seven 


separate occasions an offence committed by distant spiri- 
tual ancestors of the one to distant spiritual ancestors 
of the other. Such work as this savours more of a pagan 
blood feud than of the tender mercies of Christian charity. 
That Manchester citizens may be able to judge between 
Churchmen and Nonconformists on the education question, 
it is not necessary for Dr. Goodrich to take us back to 
the reign of Queen Anne, or recite for the hundredth time 
the tale of wrongs which ought by this time to be as 
dead as that respected sovereign herself. We are at the 
beginning of the twentieth century, not of the eighteenth, 
and the point that concerns the citizens of to-day is as to 
which of the two parties is fairest in dealing and freest 
from the persecuting spirit. Their record is before the 
people in the history of the local School Board ; let them 
see and judge. As a matter of fact, more than one School 
Board election was fought practically on this issue. In 
1885 the Unsectarian party, aided by two Church mem- 
bers, so outraged the sense of justice of the remaining 
Church members by what the latter held to be a distinct 
breach of faitlj, that they walked out of the Board room 
in a body, and most of them resigned their seats. The 
election of November, 1885, showed that the persecuting 
action of the Unsectarians did not meet with public appro- 
val. So unpalatable to the defeated party was the result 
of that election that one extreme partisan, a passive re- 
gister of the seventies, declared that the Manchester School 
Board was " in the hands of its enemies " ! What had 
really happened was that the partisan and persecuting 
policy of the late Board had received a much-needed check. 
The election of 1888 turned on the question of fidelity to 
principle. The party of religious equality had favoured 
the policv of preferential treatment for the Roman Catho- 
lics in the new Day Industrial School, by which Roman 
Catholic children, and those alone, were to be given their 
full denominational instruction entirely at the expense of 
the rates. One wonders whether the passive resistance 
conscience was hibernating at that period. However that 
may be, the public conscience declined to lend its sanction, 
for the membership of the Unsectarian party at the next 


election sank from six to four members, out of fifteen. 
1 venture to think that if Manchester had to vote to-mor- 
row between your lordship's educational policy and that 
of Dr. Goodrich it would not be you who would need to 
fear the verdict. 

The sympathy felt with you in the somewhat personal 
and persecuting tone adopted by certain of your critics 
is quickened in the case of some of us by a sense of com- 
munity in suffering. If I might be pardoned a personal 
reference, I would mention how much I resented such 
charges as one made against me in a newspaper leader 
that 1 was obstructing the work of the School Board of 
which I was a member, or the attempt to destroy the in- 
fluence of a pamphlet which I had written, by calling me 
the literary gladiator and faithful henchman of Mr. Nunn. 
Nothing wounds one who loves education more than to 
be called an obstructionist ; few things are more objec- 
tionable to a man of independent mind than to be styled 
the henchman of another, and to be compared to a gladiator 
who fights for show and pay. Certainly those who hurl 
such unfounded charges at their opponents should not com- 
plain of persecution, for such intolerance of opposition 
is a sure mark of the persecuting spirit. One of the most 
flagrant instances of this narrow-mindedness occurred in 
Manchester about twenty years ago, when a leading Non- 
conformist, commenting on an election in which he had 
been defeated, wrote in cold blood some weeks afterwards 
that commentators differed as to the meaning of the beast 
in the Book of Revelation, but that in Ardwick the num- 
ber of the beast was so-and-so, giving the number who 
had voted for his victorious opponent. One is' glad to feel 
that such an utterance would be impossible to-day. 

Although for some years past a dead set has been made 
at the bishops by Dr Clifford and other like-minded con- 
troversialists, yet popular feeling has not responded as in 
the old days, when, in the words of Butler : " The oyster- 
women locked their fish up, and went away to cry — No 

Your lordship runs no risk of being committed to 
the Tower, like good Bishop Hall, or of incurring the 


dangers of mob-law in the public streets. There are signs 
that even the acrimonious tone in which some Noncon- 
formists indulge with regard to you is regretted by the 
nobler souls among them. At the recent meeting in the 
Memorial Hall in support of the Education Bill, after 
rather carping speeches by Drs. Goodrich and Adeney, 
there followed a speech by Professor Peake, conceived in 
a different spirit. I quote the Manchester Guardian 
report : " Professor Peake, while deploring that this educa- 
tion controversy should be so long continued, asked that 
it might go on with dignity and self- restraint on the Non- 
conformist side. He thought that controversialists, espe- 
cially if they wore the Christian badge, should appear 
clothed and in their right mind instead of in war-paint, 
raising the war-whoop and thirsting for their enemies' 
blood, and greedily grasping their enemies' scalps. That 
is the kind of thing that privilege does for us. It makes 
us insolent. It is blind to the rights of others. It can 
hardly see that others have any grievance whatever." 
"Whilst welcoming the spirit of these words, the friends 
of denominational schools are entitled to point out that 
.any position of vantage they have hitherto held has been 
won by denominational service and sacrifice, at the invi- 
tation* of the State, on terms open to all alike, whilst Mr. 
McKenna's Bill, by establishing and endowing undenomi- 
nationalism entirely at the public expense, would place 
that form of religious' teaching in a position of privilege 
and predominance. 

The meeting at which Professor Peake spoke was held 
in the Memorial Hall, which bears on its face the inscrip- 
tion : "In commemoration of the year 1662." Noncon- 
formists allege against the Act of 1662 that it established 
religious uniformity, affronted some consciences, and in- 
volved a certain amount of ejectment. This was in the 
matter of churches. If I understand aright the position 
of your lordship, you contend that in the matter of schools 
Mr. McKenna's Bill also establishes religious uniformity, 
affronts some consciences, and involves a certain amount 
of ejectment. Will Nonconformists set up a grievance in 
the twentieth century parallel to that of which they com- 


plain in the seventeenth J What was partly excusable at 
a time when each side persecuted in its turn would be in- 
excusable now, when all parties profess to have learned 
the lesson of toleration. 

Open Letter 
To the Rev. Canon E. L. Hicks, M.A. 

In reflecting on the weeks of turmoil to which your 
agitation on the Mayoralty question condemned the 
citizens of Manchester, one feels that it was no slight 
matter for a man of peace to disturb the peace of the city 
— for a believer in representative government to flout the 
will of the city's duly elected representatives — for a pro- 
fessed friend of liberty to erect a new disability in con- 
nection with the Mayoral office, and for a man of kindly 
disposition to display such indifference to the feelings of 
Alderman Holt, his family, and friends. That you should 
do all this despite your high scholarship and lofty per- 
sonal character is a matter which calls for, and will repay, 
some study. It affords an object lesson on the extent to 
which extreme opinions of a certain class bias the mind 
and pervert the judgment of one who is otherwise among 
the best of men. 

You made it a charge against Alderman Holt that he 
persistently thrust his houses on districts that did not 
want them, but you had no hesitation in thrusting on 
Manchester an agitation which the city certainly did not 
want. Not a single new public-house can be opened with- 
out the previous consent of the Licensing Authority, but 
no court authorised you to thrust your agitation upon 
Manchester. From the first there were signs that your 
action ran counter to the wishes of the citizens. But 
although check succeeded check, not one nor all could 
arrest vour obstinate persistence. In vain did the Man- 
chester Guardian suggest that the man should be con- 
sidered apart from the brewer. In vain, too, did Mr, 
Samuel Watts rebuke the bigotry from which the move- 
ment sprang. His Honour Judge Parry, anticipating by 
a few weeks the verdict of Manchester, dubbed your party 
"bad citizens," but without any deterrent effect. The 



" charges " of Mr. Lewis were disproved, to the shame of 
the accuser, whereupon the Guardian proposed to "call 
a truce," but this suggestion you repudiated — " no truce 
was possible." The same paper closed its correspondence 
columns to your anonymous and other supporters, but you 
went on unabashed. Signs of internal weakness made 
themselves manifest — instead of every ward being con- 
tested on the question came the melancholy admission that 
no candidates were being brought forward by the Citizens' 
Committee, whilst appeals for contributions of money 
issued from a quarter where we had been led to believe 
that funds abounded. Your chief associates were ashamed 
to hoist their flag. Mr. Edwyn Holt, the protagonist in 
a former struggle, lacked the courage even to name the 
subject in his election address. Mr. A. Thomson pro- 
fessed not to make his election turn on the question on 
which the public had been told that every election was to 
be made to turn. But not all these multiplied checks 
availed to give you pause. You went on to the protest 
meeting in the Free Trade Hall, with its premonitions oS 
ultimate failure in the scanty platform, the unfilled hall, 
and the speeches doubly bitter from the sense of impend- 
ing defeat. Even the crash of the November elections left 
you unconvinced of the wrongheadedness of your action, 
for you advanced to the final act in this pushful comedy 
by thrusting on the City Council a " manifesto," which it 
certainly did not want. Blind leaders cannot be persuaded 
to stop till they have landed themselves and their followers 
in the ditch. 

In one of your letters referring to Mr. Holt, you spoke 
with implied contempt of his acting " according to the 
moral code of his business." I know of no special type 
of morals peculiar to the business in question, but I do 
see in the moral code of your agitation a distinct type of 
no very exalted character. The groundless charges, the 
unworthy insinuations, the misrepresentation of facts to 
which Mr. Robert Lewis resorted, did not impress the 
citizens of Manchester with a very lofty idea of the moral 
code which governed his part in the agitation. 

Turning from Mr. Lewis to the class he represented, one 


mav ask what kind of moral code is the possession of a 
party which declares at the beginning that one single 
point is so all important that every ward election must 
be fought upon it, and towards the end holds that not a 
single election should turn on that question? Was it 
loyalty to principle at all costs, or moral cowardice and 
mere expediency which led Mr. Edwyn Holt and Mr. A. 
Thomson to furl their flag and hide it away as if it were 
an item of stage property not required in that particular 

But to my mind the most objectionable item in the 
whole course of the agitation was not the deed of any indi- 
vidual. In the " manifesto " of the Citizens' Committee 
there is a clause, " By joining in the manifesto none of 
us is committed to any opinion as to the legitimacy of the 
moderate use of intoxicating liquors," etc. This invita- 
tion to beer-drinkers to join the committee in banning a 
beer-brewer shocked the moral sense of the community. 
Such an appeal might be in perfect accord with the moral 
code of Manchester's best and wisest citizens, but it was 
unhesitatingly repudiated by the conscience of the man in 
the street. So sophistical a plea could, it was 1 felt, only 
issue from sophisticated consciences. 

I have already referred to the action of Mr. Robert 
Lewis in this matter. One particular fact which caused 
the most unfavourable comment on him and those who 
lent him their moral support was his claiming to have 
seen Mr. Holt join a deputation in Manchester when he 
was actually at Windermere. Here we have a psychological 
phenomenon of the gravest interest. We all know that in 
hallucinations, when the patient is dominated by a fixed 
idea, the distinction between subjective and objective for 
the moment disappears. Dr. Henry Maudsley, the famous 
specialist on such topics, writes : " If a man has a fore- 
gone conclusion of what he will see, it is! not safe to trust 
his observations implicitly, either in science or in common 
life. One efficient cause of hallucinations is a vividly con- 
ceived idea which is so intense that it appears to be an 
actual perception, a mental image so vivid that it becomes 
a visual image." Dr. Maudsley also quotes the case of 


William Blake* poet and painter, who said : '' You have 
only to work up your imagination to the state of vision, 
and the thing is done." 

Taking then the most charitable view of Mr. Lewis's 
mistake, let us regard it as a case of hallucination. We 
know that in delirium tremens, at one extreme, visions 
purely subjective possess to the individual experiencing 
them all the force of objective reality, and it now seems 
that at the opposite pole of teetotal obsession {delirium 
fanatic-urn, shall we call it) there is the same possibility 
of hallucination. What is established in this case is that 
Mr. Robert Lewis and another possess the power of seeing 
what is not there to be seen, for he states 1 that his own 
clear conviction of seeing Mr. Holt pass from the well 
of the court was confirmed at the time by a magistrate 
present in court. The incident seems to have discredited 
Mr. Lewis with the general public more than with his 
friends, for at the Free Trade Hall meeting you made a 
kindly reference to his name (a reference which was re- 
ceived with applause by the audience), and on the first 
of November the Manchester Guardian allowed Mr. Lewis 
to appear as a moral monitor, exhorting all good citizens 
to rally to the side of righteousness. We all know how 
Manchester responded to that appeal. The public con- 
science was outraged by the light manner in which such 
serious charges were advanced, and the levity with which 
their refutation was treated. It was made abundantly 
evident that the moral code recognised by the publio 
clashed with the moral code embodied in the agitation. 

Although in your case the teetotal obsession is not, as 
in that of Mr. Lewis, strong enough to enable you to see 
with your bodily eyes what is not present, yet it is suffi- 
ciently powerful to enable you to see with the eyes of your 
mind what does not exist, and to distort beyond recog- 
nition the objects on which your mental vision operates. 
Let us take an instance. Mr. Holt, after many years of 
public service, was offered the Mayoralty some years ago, 
but declined it for family reasons. In 1907, when he had 
seventeen years of work to his credit, the offer was re- 
peated, and this time was accepted, many having held 


the office after a shorter period of service. These, then, 
were the facts— longer service and, as compared with 
others, tardier recognition. But when you came to view 
these facts they changed under your gaze into a dark con- 
spiracy- on the part of the trade to place their nominee 
in power. On this theory Mr. Holt's former refusal of the 
office was caused by the hostility of your friends to his 
claims, while his acceptance in 1907 meant that the City 
Council of 120 members was dominated by a little group 
connected with the licensing trade. Of this the only shred 
of evidence adduced was the wish expressed by the trade 
that any of their members otherwise eligible for public 
office should not shrink from accepting it. The depreca- 
tion of a trade disability was construed into the assertion 
of a trade tyranny. The picture you drew had no veri- 
similitude. As with your vision of the present, so, too, 
with your prevision of the future. Looking forward in 
November last, you foresaw all manner of evil as likely 
to occur after Mr. Holt's election. Vice was to flourish 
and drunkenness to increase, the City Council was to be 
dominated by the brewing interest, the Licensing Com- 
mittee might be corrupted, the police oould scarcely be 
trusted to do their duty impartially. All these dire predic- 
tions have been falsified by the event. So unsafe is it to 
rely on one's imagination for one's facts. Although your 
prejudices against brewers and publicans do not affect your 
bodily vision, as in the case of Mr. Lewis, yet, equally 
with him, vou labour under an acquired inability to do 
those classes simple justice. The average Englishman has 
a passion for fair play, and he is troubled with an uneasy 
sense that you and your friends cannot always be trusted 
to give your opponents fair play. Hence partly the ill- 
success of your agitation. 

In a speech which you made about the middle of last 
March you lamented the poor progress made by the cause 
you have at heart. I quote the Manchester Guardian 
report : " Speaking of the temperance agitation generally 
Canon Hicks said it had had to go< on much longer than 
it ought without having had considerable assistance from 
Parliament. He pointed to the legislation following the 


agitation against slavery and the Corn Laws. But the 
temperance agitation had had to go on, half century after 
half century and generation after generation had passed, 
and still substantially the conditions as regarded temper- 
ance in the streets and alleys, the towns and villages, re- 
mained largely unchanged." In commenting on this. I 
would make two remarks. In the first place, it must be re- 
membered that there is an essential difference between your 
unsuccessful agitation and the two successful ones you 
named. They both aimed at removing restrictions, yours 
aims at imposing them. They enlarged the bounds of 
freedom, yours seeks to contract them. In the second 
place, the mode in which the agitation has been conducted 
has done much to render it ineffectual. On the eve of the 
Peckham election the Daily News wrote : " It is a fight in 
which all the decent elements of society are on one side, 
all the corrupting influences on the other." This utterance, 
so thoroughly characteristic of the paper and the cause, 
is a specimen of language which doesi much to alienate 
moderate opinion. It is easy and convenient to assume to 
your side all»the good motives and impute to your oppo- 
nents all the bad ones. It suits your case to hold the 
brewers and publicansi of to-day responsible for the exist- 
ence of their trade, and to lay upon their shoulders all 
blame for the excessive drinking which takes place. But 
in doing this you affront the public conscience, which 
requires that a class created by a public demand and 
ministering to a public want shall be treated with ordi- 
nary fairness. The fact that the same United Kingdom 
Alliance which in 1872 rejected with scorn a Licensing 
Bill with a time-limit of ten years is now fighting for 
one containing a time-limit of fourteen years suggests 
grave reflections. So far from making headway, the 
organisation hasi lost ground ; a result which could 
scarcely have followed had its principles been sound and 
its methods unexceptionable. Everv cause is to some 
extent in the hands of its advocates, who can do much 
to make or mar its fortunes. The failure of your local 
agitation against the election of Mr. Holt throws an 
illuminating light on the failure of the Alliance as a 


national movement. In both cases the spirit displayed 
and the methods employed are such as to alienate that 
great mass of neutral opinion which must be won over 
to a cause before its triumph can be secured. 

Open Letter to 
Tfie Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, M.A., President-Designate 


Manchester was favoured last autumn with the inter- 
vention in her municipal affairs of the President and 
Vice-President of the Weslej-an Conference as well as of 
the Methodist Recorder and Methodist Times. All this 
unprecedented denominational effort was put forth in 
order to guide Manchester citizens from outside in the 
choice of a Lord Mayor. You interfered in a double capa- 
city, both by speech as President-designate and in the 
columns of the paper you edit, the Methodist Times. No 
effort, so far as I know, was made by you or any other 
Wesley an to save London from having a brewer Mayor. 
It seems strange that one brewer should be held good 
enough for the Metropolis, in which you reside, whilst 
another brewer is not considered by you good enough 
for a provincial city, in which you have no direct interest. 
Was it that any attempt to impose your will on London 
m that respect would have been laughed to scorn by Lon- 
doners? However that may be, it is noteworthy that 
Manchester rejected your advice last November in as 
marked a manner as London had done the previous March 
in the County Council election. 

Your argument at the Central Hall on the Mayoralty 
question that an interest which has to be supervised is 
" not an interest to be placed in command of the machi- 
nery by which it is supervised," is irrelevant, for, in 
fact as the Chairman of the Watch Committee stated, 
Mr. Holt could not influence that Committee if he would, 
and would not if he could. Your statement in the same 
speech that in the career of the Bishop of Manchester 
you " had never observed anything like statesmanlike 
wisdom" sugcrests unflattering reflections alike on your 
powers of observation and on your standard of courtesv 


It would be interesting to have the opinion of the Bishop 
on your own "statesmanlike wisdom," but there is no 
likelihood of such a retort being forthcoming, for the 
controversial standard of Anglican bishops excludes such 
personal references. 

Your own action on the London County Council has 
not given us 1 a very exalted idea, of your title either to 
guide the citizens of Manchester or to censure 
their Bishop. On that body you were one of 
the items in a political party which departed from the 
honourable tradition of the old School Board and excluded 
reporters from the deliberations of a committee whose 
work involved an expenditure of four millions of publio 
money yearly. Although your party had promised justice 
to the teachers in denominational schools, they broke their 
pledge until the near approach of the election in March, 
1907, induced a partial and unsatisfactory death-bed re- 
pentance. A little justice was to be meted out in instal- 
ments to that wronged class, lest the shock of being all 
at once put on an equality with their fellow-teachers of 
the provided schools should take away their breath. I 
■have called this a death-bed repentance, but it would 
be more correct to style it post-mortem reparation, for 
the moribund Council remitted to its successor the cor- 
rection of the injustice it had committed. 

In order to secure the renewal of your party's misused 
power, you sought to employ the machinery of London 
Methodism towards that end, and when your friend of 
the Free Church Council, Mr. R. W- Perks, modified the 
point of your effort, you rounded on him with the polite 
remark that there was " a flavour of Satan rebuking sin " 
in his protest against introducing politics into Metho- 
dism. These words imply that you plead guilty to the 
charge of bringing politics into religion, but that by way 
of extenuation you plead that Mr. Perks himself is as 
bad or worse. Altogether two noteworthy admissions. 

But these matters, important though they are, fade 
into insignificance in comparison with your treatment 
of the question of national education. Where in this sub- 
ject have you displayed that " statesmanlike wisdom " 


the possession of which you loftily deny to the Bishop of 
Manchester? I know what Wesleyan educational prin- 
ciples were forty years ago, for I learned them under the 
teaching of the Rev John Scott. But to what a tangle of 
difficulty and self-contradiction is it reduced to-day 
through the influence of the late Rev. H. P Hughes and 
the alliance of yoursielf and other Wesleyans with the 
leaders of the Free Church Council. Mr. Perks declares in 
the House of Commons that Wesleyans desire not merely 
Bible teaching in all day schools, but also Bible instruc- 
tion. For this he would make all contribute, including 
many who conscientiously object to such teaching. Yet 
at the same time he declares with the passive resisters 
that no one must be compelled to contribute towards reli- 
gious teaching to which he conscientiously objects. He 
and you raise the cry, " No testsi for teachers," yet you 
expect the teachers to give your Bible teaching in the 
schools. If the fact that they have to give this religious 
instruction reacts selectively on the teachers, tests are in 
actual operation, in which case what becomes of the cry? 
If they do not, your Bible teaching will be largely given 
by those who do not themselves believe what they teach. 
Moreover, the denominational colleges which have hitherto 
done so much to supply teachers suitable for this part of 
their work are to be deprived as far as possible of their 
denominational character, so that the proportion of 
teachers fully equipped for religious teaching must steadily 
decline. As to the character of the religious instruction 
recommended by the Free Church Council at their New- 
castle meeting, it may be questioned whether it can justly 
be styled Christian, for in reply to the challenge of the 
Dean of Canterbury, Dr Clifford would not say that it in- 
cluded the central doctrine of Christianity — the deitv of 

You are well aware that many of your colleagues of the 
Free Church Council are in favour of secular education, 
and that the President declared that a vote against that 
'' solution " of the question could not be carried in that 
body if a proposal in its favour were made by the Govern- 
ment. Your sense of the insecurity of religious education 


in such hands has even led you to hint at the disruption 
of the Free Church Council as the possible result of its 
adoption of the secular policy. Referring to the declara- 
tion in favour of secular education made by the President, 
you said : " Nor could his view be adopted as its final 
policy without such a conflict as might endanger its very 
existence." What a position of affairs ! Was it to bring 
the cause of religious education in the day schools into 
so precarious a position that the policy of John Scott and 
Dr. Rigg was reversed, and Methodism allied on its 
educational side with a party predominantly political? 

At the Southport meeting of th e Free Church Council 
Mr. McKenna's Education Bill was, according to the report, 
approved by a unanimous vote. The word unanimous 
scarcely applies. These same men, had the Government 
proposed what is called the secular solution, would have 
carried a vote in its favour, as Dr. Harris stated a year 
before. As it was, Mr. McKenna had proposed Cowper- 
Temple teaching, and all voted in its favour. It was not 
a matter of minds, but of hands. The vote was in the 
region of tdtetics rather than of principle. Many of those 
present were like-minded with Dr. Massie, who, a few 
weeks before, had stated candidly that he believed in secu- 
lar education, but that, if the party advocated that view, 
" Mr. Balfour would sweep the country." Such men can 
give no guarantee of the permanence of Cowper-Temple 
teaching if it were established. It would come to the 
country from their hands' rather than their hearts, and 
would find in them but half-hearted defenders should a 
new tribe of passive registers subject it to attack. 

The proposals of Mr. McKenna's Bill in reference to 
single-school areas were heartily endorsed by yourself and 
the Free Church Council. Let us suppose them carried 
into effect. How would the new arrangement appear to 
a villager who was outside the ranks alike of Church 
and Dissent? We will take the case of an agnostic who 
reads his Clarion, and holds with Mr. Blatchford that 
" Christianity is not true." Such a man might hold to 
his Nonconformist /fellow- villagers language something 
like the following : " Taught by you, I become a passive 


resister, and refuse to pay towards religious teaching to 
which I conscientiously object. When you resisted you 
did so on account of a little difference, for Church and 
Dissent are both forms of Christianity, whereas I reject 
Christianity altogether. And while the Churchman by 
providing a site and school building, and by subscription 
had something to set off against the religious teaching he 
favoured, you throw all the cost of your form of religious 
teaching on the public. And I further claim your sym- 
pathy beoause many of your most trusted leaders, although 
they helped to establish Bible teaching in the schools, 
had declared that they thought the secular solution the 
only just one." What would village Nonconformists say 
to such a plea? What could they say? 

Open Letter to the 
Rev. Dr. Jas. Hope Moulton, op Didsburt College. 

When, more than thirty years ago, I was a student in 
the Logic Class of the late Professor Jevons, we were 
cautioned against the mistake of drawing general conclu- 
sions from particular premises. You seemed to me to draw 
a conclusion wider than your premises when in a letter on 
the Mayoralty question you inferred that because you 
were personally conscious of being uninfluenced by reli- 
gious or political partisanship in the matter, there was, 
therefore, no such element in the whole movement. Just 
as one swallow does not make a summer, so one indi- 
vidual does not comprise an entire party. In a phrase, 
the strength of whose language stood in marked contrast 
to the weakness of the argument, you " nailed this lie 
to the counter," yet the letter in which these amiable 
words occur was immediately followed in the columns of 
the Manchester Guardian by another containing a direct 
political appeal from a brother minister. 

A somewhat similar objection lies to a remark you 
made in your speech at the protest meeting in the Free 
Trade Hall, when you said that the agitation against Mr. 
Holt's election was not a clerical movement, for the two 
speakers who had preceded you were laymen. The argu- 
ment is too casual and incidental to have weight. A 


movement dominated by clerics may enlist the support of 
some laymen without losing its essentially clerical char- 
acter. One of the other speakers at the Free Trade Hall 
delivered himself of a remark which might take rank with 
the one of your own just quoted. He said that the opposi- 
tion to Mr. Holt's election was not a Nonconformist move- 
ment, because Canon Hicks occupied the chair at that 
meeting. The presence of one clergyman does not balance 
that of hundreds of Nonconformists. A movement may be 
preponderatingly Nonconformist and yet include one or 
two Anglicans. No one would deny that passive resistance 
was in its broad character a Nonconformist movement, 
although one or two clergymen and a handful of Agnos- 
tics have been found in its ranks. 

In a letter which you wrote on the education question 
you repudiated the statement that Wesleyan Methodism 
was a daughter Church to the Church of England, be- 
cause, you said, that would make Methodism the grand- 
daughter of the Church of Rome, which, you declared, 
was absurd. Herein you obviously assumed that the 
Church of Bome stood in the relation of mother to the 
Church of England. Yet you declared yourself willing 
to admit that the English Church and Methodism were 
" sister " Churches. Now, sisters are daughters of a com- 
mon mother, and you had implied that the Church of 
England was daughter to the Church of Rome, so that 
your statement binds you to the view that Methodism 
also is a daughter to the Church of Rome. After re- 
jecting as absurd a view which, you said, implied that 
Methodism is the grand-daughter of the Church of Rome, 
you prefer a statement which implies! a filial relation. If 
the idea of being a grand-daughter is unwelcome and 
absurd, the idea, of being a daughter should be still more 
unwelcome and absurd. 

I mention these points in no petty or carping spirit, 
but because the possession of great learning is a minor 
qualification for safe leadership of public opinion com- 
pared with the ability to draw correct conclusions from 
acquired knowledge without being influenced by bias, 
passion, or prejudice. Now that under the new order 


of things Wesleyan ministers essay to guide the Wesleyan 
public and others to definite conclusions on the burning 
questions of the day, the competence of such guidance 
is a fair matter for criticism. Perhaps the most notable 
intervention of a London Wesleyan minister in Man- 
chester affairs occurred when, in 1888, the late Rev. H. 
P Hughes spoke in the Free Trade Hall in favour of the 
Unsectarian party at the School Board election. Although 
that party was pledged to preferential treatment of the 
Roman Catholics in the new Day Industrial School, he 
gave them support, making no reference whatever to that 
subject in the course of a long speech. The opinion of the 
Manchester public was made clear when in the following 
election the membership of the Unsectarian party on 
the School Board sank from six to four out of fifteen, the 
lowest in its history. In that way the citizens of Man- 
chester responded to the suggestion of a London Wes- 
leyan minister. In November, 1897, the people of Man- 
chester pronounced opinion by their votes on another 
ministerial suggestion, this time from Didsbury, when 
Professor Slater stood as a candidate for the local School 
Board. My friend the late Mr. William Wardale told 
me that the Manchester Wesleyan Synod recommended 
Professor Slater to the support 'of the Wesleyan electors, 
but did not propose to countenance his own candidature, 
although as a Wesleyan candidate and a member of that 
Synod he had equal claims to recognition with the Dids- 
bury professor. Perhaps it may be said by way of excuse 
that Mr. Wardale had the support of the teachers as a 
body That is true, just as it is true, on the other hand, 
that Mr. Slater had his prestige as a minister and pro- 
fessor. But these professional questions were outside the 
scope of the Synod, which should have dealt with two 
equally well-qualified Wesleyan candidates on equal terms 
simply as Wesleyans. As it was, at the evening service 
of the Sunday immediately prior to the School Board 
election, Mr Wardale had the mortification of seeing per- 
sons standing at the doors of the chapel he attended 
busily engaged in distributing handbills of which the 
text was that Wesleyans should vote for Mr. Slater. In 


the result Mr."Wardale headed the poll with 84,259 votes. 
Professor Slater, with 25,367, was one of the rejected 
candidates, and the lowest but one out of the entire list. 

Ten years later, in 1907, over the question of Mr. 
Holt's designation to the Mayoralty, came another lead 
from Didsbury, which also failed of acceptance by the 
general public. The movement in which you took so 
prominent a part was felt by many to be essentially of 
a persecuting nature, and as such was generally con- 
demned. The people willed that so* long as brewers 
existed to meet a public demand, they should not be 
denied the rights of citizenship in all their fulness. The 
uridesirability of class disability seems to have been the 
lesson inculcated by the November polls of 1907 

You are now taking a very decided stand in favour of 
the Government's Licensing Bill. Just as some of us 
felt that you and your friends were prepared to mete out 
to a local member of the trade something a little less 
than justice over the Mayoralty question, so on this 
larger national matter of licensing we have an uncanny 
feeling thai your party is scarcely fair to the interests 
involved. In your sermon of March 15th, in the Free 
Trade Hall, you said that the fact that the trade was so 
violent " proved conclusively " that the Licensing Bill 
would do much to abate the evils of drink. Such a re- 
mark throws light on your idea of conclusive proof. I 
will match your remark with another. A few months 
ago Dr. J. H. Moulton was advocating in the same Free 
Trade Hall a measure of injustice to a local brewer be- 
cause he was a brewer. The fact that the same Dr. Moul- 
ton now supports the Government Licensing Bill " proves 
conclusively " that it, too, is a measure of injustice to 
the brewing class. This is at least as good a plea as your 
own. Of course, neither yours nor mine is a conclusive 
proof. Such arguments are of a merely presumptive char- 
acter, and may range in value from a high to a low degree 
of probability. 

So, too, with regard to your support of Mr. MoKenna's 
Education Bill, does it not seem harsh treatment and 
savouring of persecution to take possession of Church 


schools in single-school areas for five days in the week, 
bring all the parochial activities to an end on the evenings 
of those days, set up the Bible teaching desired by Non- 
conformists to be taught in school hours by the school 
teachers, while the religious teaching for which the 
school was built can only be given out of school hours in 
lessons which will certainly be extra, and may easily be 
regarded by the children as punishment lessons marking 
them off in an invidious way from their established and 
endowed Nonconformist school-fellows? In my opinion, 
the appeal to the national conscience on this matter made 
by the Bishop of Manchester is necessary and praise- 
worth}", as was also the stand he made on the Mayoralty 
question. I was sorry to see that with reference to the 
latter the Rev. Geo. Hooper said that '"' the Bishop's letter 
was just what might be expected from a bishop, sophis- 
tical and casuistioal to the core." Criticism of this kind 
reflects the bias of the critic rather than a judgment in 
harmony with facts. Alike over the purely local ques- 
tion of the Mayoralty and the wider question of national 
education, the action of the Bishop of Manchester failed 
to please those who derived their inspiration from the 
Free Church Council, but the event will probably show 
in the latter case, as it did in the former, that it appealed 
with success to a larger public. In the meantime the 
somewhat savage tone in which certain Nonconformist 
ministers assail bishops in general, and the Bishop of 
Manchester in particular, reminds one of the suggestive 
slip made by the schoolgirl, who, in her essay on wild 
beasts, wrote, "There are now no wild beasts in England 
except those in Theological Gardens." 

Open Letter 
To R. D. Darbishire, Esq. 
(Honorary Freeman of the City of Manchester). 

When the Manchester City Council bestowed upon you 
the merited honour of the freedom of the city, no one 
marred your legitimate satisfaction by any contemptuous 
reference to your calling ; but when the same Council 
indicated its intention of conferring the equally merited 


honour of ttfe Mayoralty on Alderman Holt, you wrote 
a letter in which you not only impugned the wisdom of 
the Council, but also hurled at Mr. Holt's business the 
wounding phrase " this devil's trade." The insult con- 
veyed in these words passes by the man for whom it was 
intended, and fastens on the nation that created and 
sanctioned the trade, maintains it in being, and does 
not disdain to draw some tens of millions of national 
revenue from this source. 

Probably if votes were taken on the comparative popu- 
larity of lawyers and brewers, it is not your class that 
would head the poll. Certainly there are no phrasesi in 
current speech aimed at the brewer class to compare with 
those directed against lawyers. Sir W. H. Vaudrey, on 
his installation as Mayor, himself good-humouredly quoted 
one of these, saying that when a certain person was told 
to go to the devil he went to see his lawyer. On similar 
lines is the oft-quoted phrase describing a religious lawyer 
as one who was a professing Christian but a practising 
attorney. The general view of the phrase " An honest 
lawyer " as almost a contradiction in terms points also 
to a certain degree of floating unpopularity attaching 
to the lawyer class. Yet in spite of all this, in spite, 
too, of the fact that some solicitorsi have to be struck 
off the rolls — that the profession is to- a certain extent 
associated with chicanery and crime — that however bad 
the case a lawyer can generally be got to take it up- — we 
rightly hold the law to be an honourable profession, and 
should regard it as intolerable narrowness if a, lawyer's 
business were called a devil's trade, and made a bar to 
the conferment of civic honours. 

It was with great regret that many Manchester citizens 
saw you lend the weight of your justly-honoured name 
also to a movement so anarchic as the passive resistance 
crusade. A life spent with distinction in the practice 
of the law might, they felt, have been expected to in- 
culcate a greater regard for law and constituted order, 
the very foundation of the State's stability. Hence it 
was with added pain they saw that you not only adopted 
so subversive a course, but did so with such an extremity 


of assertion, offering to the distrainers the casket con- 
taining the record of your admission as honorary freeman 
of the city and taking the chair at a passive resistance 
demonstration in the Town Hall itself, thus converting 
the very focus of civic order into a centre for promoting 
resistance to that order. The protest of Nonconformity 
in the past was necessary and justifiable, but is it not 
possible in these modern days to insist too strongly and 
in too violent a manner on presumed rights to the dis- 
regard of correlative duties 1 We all have to live together 
in a community, and should not push our claims to con- 
sideration to the detriment of the equally valid claims 
of our fellow-citizens. The rights of one type of con- 
science are not absolute, but are qualified by the equal 
rights of other types. Not only is passive resistance bad 
citizenship, but even for passive resisters themselves it 
is bad policy. Men who rely on future legislation as a 
great instrument in securing thosie changes in the social 
order which they desire, should be the last to show how 
legislation may be reduced to impotence. The Nemesis 
of passive resistance is already apparent in the check 
upon new educational legislation imposed by the dread 
of passive resistance or worse on the part of those likely 
to be aggrieved thereby. I say " worse," because the 
coming race of resisters may be tempted to say to their 
predecessors in the words of Shylock, " The villainy you 
teach me T will execute, and it shall go hard, but I will 
better the instruction." Faeih's est descensus Averni. 

Last year, along with other members of the Teachers' 
Guild, I received from you by post a pamphlet condemn- 
ing altogether corporal punishment in schools, and clos- 
ing with the following sentence : " Oh, teachers, be ye 
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven 
is perfect." 

The body of this pamphlet consisted merely of two 
cases of injudicious punishment, one by the head-master 
of a boarding school, the other by a school doctor. Ignor- 
ing the legal dictum that hard- cases make bad law, 
ignoring, too, the common maxim that rules must not be 
based on exceptional instances, you rested your argument 


on the tacit assumption that no power must be allowed 
which is susceptible of abuse. What authority would 
survive such a test? 

When I began educational work in Manchester in 1865, 
teachers were allowed without question larger powers of 
discipline and greater freedom of initiative than is the 
case to-day. Those powers were used with judgment to 
the advantage of the children, and the ultimate benefit 
of the city at large. Since then Manchester education 
has come to be admirably organised, large sums of public 
money have been and are being expended upon it, an 
able and devoted Education Committee toils laboriously 
at the task of its control, yet the result is generally felt 
to be scarcely commensurate with the effort. There is a 
pervading sense of intellectual monotony and moral in- 
discipline. The symptoms are obvious, but what of the 
remedy? Nothing would help so much to bring about 
a more satisfactory state of things as a change of attitude 
to the teachers. Honour them, magnify their work, en- 
trust them with larger powers of discipline, allow greater 
scope to t individual initiative and resource, abate the 
multitudinous examinations, inspections, and reviews to 
which they are subjected, and reduce the clerical -work 
of form-filling and return-making to a minimum. A 
policy of confidence and sympathy would soon be justified 
by its results. 

Open Letter to 
Mr. J. W Graham. M.A., Principal op Dalton Hall. 

To you belongs the double distinction, such as it is, of 
writing the bitterest of many bitter letters in the Mayor- 
alty controversy and of making the most insulting allu- 
sion of all the speakers at the protest meeting held in 
the Free Trade Hall. The soil of piety and learning 
would, one might think, grow the fine flower of Christian 
courtesy. As Mr Belloc writes: — 

" Of Courtesy it is much less 
Than Courage of Heart or Holiness ; 
Yet in my walks it seems to me, 
The Grace of God is in Courtesy." 


Tour reply to an appeal for courtesy in this connection 
would perhaps be that the loud cries of truth and justice 
sometimes drown the milder tones of courtesy. Let us 
take it on that ground. In every other sphere you hold a 
man responsible for his own acts, not for the deeds of 
another. The faults of the glutton are not placed on the 
shoulders of those who supplied him with food, the ex- 
cesses of dress extravaganoe are not imputed to the shop- 
keeper who supplied the goods ; only in one trade is the 
trader made responsible for the abuse of his produots. 

In your letter to the Manchester Guardian you drew 
a fancy picture of a philanthropic meeting in the Mayor's 
Parlour, with Mr. Holt, as Mayor, in the chair. Refer- 
ring to the tea provided by the Mayor's hospitality, you 
said that " each cup tasted as though it represented the 
profit on the pint too much which some poor fool had 
taken," and you represent the speaker who is moving a vote 
of thanks to the Mayor as " stumbling upon a poor despair- 
ing witticism about his Worship's interests being invari- 
ably devoted to the public." 

This picture does more credit to your powers as an 
imaginative writer than as a prophet, for even flights of 
imagination should be subject to the canons of self-con- 
sistency and good taste. The picture you drew of the 
scene in the Mayor's Parlour lacks verisimilitude, for those 
who could not drink the Mayor's tea without thinking 
censorious thoughts of their host would surely not drink it 
at all. As for the poor despairing witticism about his 
Worship's interests being invariably devoted to the public, 
the remark would not be uttered, because those who 
accept the Mayor's hospitality are presumably English 
gentlemen and ladies, and as such incapable of so gratui- 
tous an impertinence. 

After the written word came the spoken word well 
fitted to match it. In your speech at the Free Trade Hall 
you compared the money expended bv Alderman Holt in 
philanthropic work with the thirty pieces of silver which 
the traitor Judas received for betraying the Christ. A 
few hours before hearing these words fall from your lips 
I had read an account in a newspaper of the shocking con- 


ditions under "Which the raw cocoa largely purchased by 
Messrs. Cadbury and other Quaker firms was obtained, 
and I could not help wondering if in drinking a cup of 
the Cadbury cocoa you would apply the same method of 
reasoning. Would you condemn the philanthropies of the 
cocoa firms as the fruit of blood money ? Would you say 
that the funds subscribed to the support of the Free 
Church Council were comparable to the thirty pieces of 
silver received by the betrayer? If Mr. Holt's tea brought 
up such unpleasiant thoughts, Mr. Cadbury' s cocoa would, 
I suppose, recall to your mind the bleaching skeletons of 
the negroes who lay down to die in their march from 
the interior of Angola to the coast — of " the innumerable 
offences against the person " which occur in the islands 
to which the hapless survivors of the march are conveyed 
— of anaemia and dysentery, diseases born of absolute 
hopelessness, carrying off their victims at the rate of 
one-fifth of their numbers yearly. To think that men who 
are eloquent on Chinese labour and Congo atrocities can 
be dumb about work like this. Let us, in the name of 
common justice, have either a smaller expenditure or a 
more equitable distribution of this abounding righteous 

Just as you seem incapable of doing ordinary justice to 
Mr. Holt, so do you turn angrily upon the Bishop when he 
states the equities of the case. Woe to the man you dis- 
like ; woe, too, to him who stands for justice to the man 
you dislike! Not high station, not lofty character, not 
apostolic labours avail to save such an one from your un- 
worthy and unjustifiable insinuations. " The Bishop may 
have been sent here by Mr. Balfour as a first-rate fighting 
man " contains a suggestion which, with its double edge 
against the Bishop and Mr. Balfour, must have been very 
gratifying for you to make, but the ninth commandment 
should have barred the utterance. You hint that Dr. 
Knox if, in alliance with the drink trade — " We all like 
to keep with our intimates " — the very charge brought 
by the Pharisees of another day against the Christ, whom 
they accused of consorting with sinners. 

You entirely misrepresented the Bishop's argument in 



reference to Mr. Holt's diligence in his business. Dr. 
Knox wrote : " It is surely unjust to object to a man's 
diligence in promoting his work. Such diligence is rather 
a guarantee that he will discharge his public duties with 
equal diligence." Your travesty of this runs : " Whence 
comes an argument that a tradesman troubled by no 
scruples in pushing a dangerous trade shows himself likely 
for that reason to be a diligent occupant where grace, 
dignity, catholic sympathy, and personal weight are the 
chief qualities desired?" In this way do you pervert the 
plain argument that a man who discharges efficiently the 
duties of a necessary and legitimate trade is likely to 
discharge efficiently the duties of any post to which the 
goodwill and high appreciation of his fellow-citizens may 
call him. And after this exhibition of sophistry,_ you 
crown all by accusing the Bishop of being " sophistical." 

The great fault of the Bishop's letter from your point 
of view, was that it was unanswerable. It was a calm 
appeal to reason against prejudice and clamorous abuse, 
a vindication of civic rights against those who sought to 
curtail them, an assertion of justice against the most 
reckless injustice, a repudiation, in short, of the new 
veto, the new inquisition, the new class persecution. 
Manchester emphatically endorsed the Bishop's judgment, 
and Alderman Holt as 1 Lord Mayor is showing that he 
possesses those qualities of " dignity and personal weight " 
which you named as incompatible with his calling. 

Much was said in the course of the recent controversy 
which will not bear comparison with the standard of the 
moral law. There is here ample scope for self-examination 
and heart-searching. Let us hope that time and reflection 
will bring you round to more balanced views and a kindlier 
spirit. For none of us, not even the most intense, has 
the reassurance of personal infallibility- We may, one 
and all, take to ourselves the remonstrance which Crom- 
well addressed to the General Assembly of the Church of 
Scotland in 1650, when he wrote from Musselburgh: "Is 
it infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? 
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible 
that you may be mistaken." 


Open Letter 
To Mr. E. Vipont Brown, M.D. (Lond.). 

Elsewhere I have dealt with your statement that those 
should be considered unfit for positions of public trust 
" who take advantage in any way of their fellow-men." 
It is my wish in this letter to show how plausible a case 
might be made out for excluding members of your own 
profession from such positions. I present the effort, not 
as a genuine piece of reasoning, but as the " reductio ad 
absurdum " of your own. 

Where, then, shall we begin our temporary and uncon- 
genial task of decrying the medical profession? Out of 
the abounding material at our disposal, let us select an 
Italian case in the fourteenth century in order to see what 
a great poet thought of doctors over five centuries ago. 
Petrarch, writing from Padua in May, 1371, to Pandolfo 
Malatesta, says : " All of a sudden a most violent fit of 
my familiar fever seized me. The physicians flocked in, 
some sent by order of the lord of the city, others drawn 
to the house by friendly concern for me. Up and down 
they wrangled and disputed, till at last they settled that 
I was to die at midnight. Already it was the first watch 
of the night; see what a tiny span of life remained to 
me, if these humbugging fellows' tales had been true! 
They said there was one possible expedient for prolong- 
ing my life a little — that of tying me up in some arrange- 
ment of strings so as to prevent me going to sleep. In 
this way there was just a chance that I might last till 
morning — a mighty tiresome price to pay for this little 
extra time ! As a matter of fact, to rob me of my sleep 
was just the way to kill me. As I 'had always ordered 
my servants to do the exact contrary of what my doctors 
advised, I passed that night in a sweet, deep sleep, and 
I, that was to die at midnight, was found by my doctors 
when they flocked next morning to my funeral, sitting 
up and writing ! They could say nothing but that I was 
a wonderful man. Yet, if I am a wonderful man, how 
much more wonderful are they !" 

The case of Petrarch is historical. Let us turn now to 
a French skit which, though only a joke, i« not without 


a point fashioned by experience. The tale goes that a cer- 
tain rich man who suffered from a troublesome disease was 
visited by a fairy, who handed him a magic ring, with 
the words, " It is not in my power directly to cure you, 
but I can do something to help you in the choice of a 
physician. Place this ring on one of your fingers, and 
when, armed with that, you approach the house of any 
professed healer, you will see before his door the ghosts 
of all those whom he has been the means of sending out 
of the world before their proper time." Losing no time 
in commencing his quest for a competent doctor, he took 
the ring, and sallied forth into the street. The first house 
he approached was that of the fashionable physician of the 
town, but before his door he saw such a crowd of ghosts 
clamouring for vengeance on the sihortener of their lives, 
that he quickly passed on to the residence of a less fashion- 
able doctor. Here the crowd was smaller, but still large 
enough to inspire anything but confidence. So on he went, 
full of doubt and misgiving, until at last he came to a 
house where the ghosts of only two victims were to be 
seen. " This man," he said to himself, " has only killed 
two of his patients, I will consult him." On entering he 
had the usual kind of interview with its formula of ex- 
amination, diagnosis, prescription, fee, etc., and was 
about to withdraw when the doctor said to him : " Do 
not deem me impertinent, sir, but I am rather curious to 
know how you came to consult me. I am a comparative 
new-comer to the town, and so far have only had two 

But, leaving jokea on one side, let us return to facts. 
You, Dr. Brown, rightly deplore the evils of drunkenness, 
but will you tell us how much of the excessive drinking 
of to-day is due to the practice and recommendation of 
doctors in the past? How heavy, too, is the indictment 
against doctors on the score of preventible pain not cured 
through mistaken treatment or positively inflicted by bar- 
barous treatment? Where, now, is the practice of cup- 
ping and bleeding? Gone to the limbo of exploded medi- 
cal superstitions. 

The anti-vaccinationist appears on the scene as a wit- 


ness against the* medical profession, and contends that it 
is wrong to put corruption into a child's system, and that 
if vaccination were really necessary a town like Leicester 
ought to have been decimated before now, seeing that 
for thirty years not one child in ten has been vaccinated 
there. In the large sums which the profession draws 
annually for vaccination fees the anti-vaccinationist sees 
a clash between the interests of a class and of the public 
at large. He holds, to use your own words, that in this 
case doctors " take advantage of their fellow-men." 

The opponent of vivisection, too, has his quarrel with 
a section of the medical profession. The charge of in- 
humanity is freely brought against vivisectionists. More- 
over, it was in order to provide cases for dissection that 
Burke, Hare, and others violated newly-made graves, and 
murders were even committed in order to provide doctors 
with " subjects." 

Look at the hopeless division of opinion in medical 
practice and theory We have the orthodox allopathic 
school, the homoeopathic school, the hydropathic treat- 
ment, the herbalist, the " bone-Setter," etc., and all equally 
•helpless before such a disease as cancer. How little faith 
the general public have in medical treatment is evidenced 
by the hundreds of quack remedies to which they have 
recourse from Beecham'si Pills " worth a guinea a box " 
(according to Beecham) downwards or upwards, I know 
not which. 

There are three ways in which a doctor may view a 
patient : — ■ 

1. Purely as a fellow-creature, to be saved as much 
pain and to be cured as quickly as the doctor himself 
would wish if he were the patient. Let us call this the 
human interest. 

2. He may consider his patient as a " case," and per- 
haps as a case for experiments, the effect of which he may 
watch and study for his professional improvement. We 
will call this the scientific interest. 

3. There is the purely selfish and merely pecuniary 
interest, which tempts a man to prolong a case for the 
sake of increased fees, and suggests the abuse of that 


power over his helpless patient which his professional posi- 
tion gives him. 

Of the three interests just named only the first presents 
a case in which the professional view is in harmony with 
the public view. With regard to the other two, shall we 
assume (as you do in speaking of the publican's interest 
in the excessive sale of drink) that where the interests of 
the doctor and the public clash, those of the public are 
sacrificed? On this point a publican might very fairly 
say that he only serves hisi customers with what they 
demand, while a doctor imposes on a patient what medi- 
cine he pleases — that if he oversteps the line and serves 
a man in drink, the drunkard stumbles' into the street 
advertising the fact to a critical public, while the doctor's 
deeds of a similar character are not done in the public 
eye, and, when a fatal case occurs, he has only to make 
out a burial certificate, and his failures are quickly put 
out of sight. 

Of course, so long as human nature is what it is, some 
publicans and some doctors will succumb to the tempta- 
tion to put their personal interests above those of the 
public weal, but in both cases it is unfair to condemn 
the class for the misdoings of a portion of that classi. 
■When, for example, I see in the Birmingham Daily Post 
of December 18th, 1907, that, when the vaccination fees 
were appointed to be reduced in Aston after a certain 
date the two public vaccinators, in order to secure as many 
cases as possible under the higher scale, began vaccinat- 
ing children at an earlier age than usual, and even went 
so far as to vaccinate five children at the age of one day, 
am I justified in saying that all doctors act on the same 
principle ? That is the way in which publicans are judged. 

With regard to hospitals, I might quote the words of 
Dr J H. Keay, an ex-Guardian of the Greenwich Union, 
wIki said that even in a provincial hospital he had seen 
patients treated at the rate of one a minute, and that " the 
mischief wrought by the Poor Law sank into utter insig- 
nificance when compared with the mischief wrought by 

I will close my case with a quotation from the late Sir 


Andrew Clark : " It is very hard for us doctors to think 
that we live by the sins, the ignorance, and the follies of 

I have now presented a rough indictment of the medical 
profession on the lines which you followed in your attack 
on the brewer and publican. Does it follow from what has 
been adduced that doctors are to be decried as a clasis, 
held up to public execration, and refused positions of 
trust and honour? Nothing of the kind. I have 
simply matched your bad argument against the publican 
with my bad argument against the doctor, in order to dis- 
credit that class of reasoning. If this mischievous policy of 
class-hatred and class-branding were carried out, the com- 
munity could not hold together for long. We should have 
a caste system worse than that of India, and what the end 
would be no man could say. Let us cease from bitterness 
and strife, and seek the co-operation of all classes for the 
public good. Where the spirit of Antipathy has failed, 
the genius of Sympathy may succeed. 

Court op Honour. 

^Record of Trial before Mr. Justice Fairplay of T. BORER 
WILES on a charge of conduct unbecoming a 
citizen and a gentleman. 
Counsel for the City of Manchester: Lawyer Good- 
Counsel for the prisoner : Lawyer Toogood. 
At the commencement of the hearing the police proved 
eight previous committals to prison against the accused, 
who, they said, repeated his offence at regular intervals. 
The Prison Gate Mission and Discharged Prisoners' Aid 
Society produced no impression on the prisoner, who 
appeared to glory in the number of his offences. 

Lawyer Toogood : I object, my lord, to the record of 
these commitals being counted against the prisoner. They 
are part of the proceedings of the ordinary court. _ _ _ 
Judge Fairplay : I disallow the objection. While it is 
true that this court deals with those finer social issues 
which concern the citizen, not as citizen merely, but as a 
man of honour, we cannot be indifferent to the prisoners 


record in the ordinary courts. The man who has broken 
the ordinary law has failed as a man, and may fairly be 
judged as likely to fail as a gentleman. We will proceed 
with the case. What is the offence for which he was com- 
mitted to prison those eight times? 

Police-sergeant : Refusing to pay his education rate, 
my lord. 

Judge Fairplay : Such conduct wa.s anarchic. He was 
playing the part of a bad citizen. If everybody acted like 
that, all law and order would go by the board. 

Lawyer Toogood : It was a case of conscience, my lord. 
He wished people to argue like this — 'that the law he re- 
sisted must be a bad law because so good a man resisted it. 

Judge Fairplay: That plea is not admissible here. 
Good citizens will rather say that a cause must be bad 
which relies on law-breaking for its support. When he gets 
the laws he favours passed how would he like them to be 
met with passive resistance? 

L. T. : Before the evidence is produced I should like 
to make a preliminary objection. My client says that his 
name is not T. BORER WILES as printed on the charge 
sheet. He objects to insinuations, at least against himself, 
and says that the name contains no less than three inju- 
rious imputations which are calculated to prejudice his 

J. F : State them. 

L. T. : He thinks that the letter T suggests that his 
staple, drink is tea. This involves a sneer at his teetotal 

J. F : The point is a trivial one. The prisoner is over 

L. G. : Those who deal most largely in insinuations 
are the first to resent them as against themselves, my lord. 

L. T. : My client holds, in the second place, that the 
word BORER suggests that he bored or annoyed the public 
by the agitation which he commenced in Manchester. 
And, lastly, he considers that the name WILES insinuates 
that he employs wily, crafty methods in his propagandist 
work. The Bible, you will recollect, my lord, speaks of 
"the wiles of the devil," and that is an unoomfo liable 
association for so conscientious a man as my client. 


J. F : Let the prisoner write what he deems his real 
name and pass it up to me. (This was done.) 

J. F : On comparing the names as written and printed 
I find that the first six letters in the printed form make, 
when re-arranged, the Christian name in the written 
form, and that, in like manner, the last five letters in the 
printed form make up when rearranged the surname in 
the written form. 

L. T. : Can the name be altered to what my client has 
written 1 

J. F- : No, but if the prisoner wishes he may have his 
name as written added as an alias to the printed name. 
Persons who have been repeatedly imprisoned frequently 
accumulate aliases. 

L. T. : My client is shocked at the idea of so good a 
man as himself being associated with an alias. 

J. F. : He has associated himself with more question- 
able things. But go on. 

Lawyer Goodenough then proved the following facts : — 

1. That the prisoner had recklessly and wantonly dis- 
turbed tke peace of the City of Manchester by com- 
mencing what he himself called " an embittered con- 
troversy " aimed at the choice of the City Council 
in the matter of the Mayoralty. 

2. That he had put forward statements false to fact, 
and that in matters on which he professed to be an 
expert — as that Mr. Holt wasi President of the Brewers' 
Association, that he was the largest owner of tied 
houses in Manchester, and so on. 

3. That he displayed such culpable levity and careless- 
ness in statements affecting the status of a leading 
citizen as to state that he had seen Mr. Holt present 
at a deputation in Manchester when he was at Winder- 

4. That he made an insinuation against Alderman Holt 
that he had authorised the offer of a bribe of £1,000 
in order to buy off opposition to the granting of a 
certain licence, although Mr. Holt had then nothing 
to do with the plot of land in question. 

5. That he displayed an incapacity to appreciate the 


usual standard of men of honour, for when he had 
stated that both on the Licensing Bench and in the 
City Council there was the disposition to be con- 
siderate to an amiable colleague (thus suggesting a 
perversion of justice from reasons of favouritism), he 
maintained, when challenged on the subject by the 
Clerk to the Magistrates, that this charge implied 
'• no serious imputation " on those concerned. 

J. F. : Did the prisoner not make a full and frank 
apology when he found that his charges were false? 

L. G. : No. In reference thereto he made the rather 
vulgar remark that " anything that stirred men up was 
helpful to them and to ' the civic forces. Therefore he 
never apologisied for making a row. He might get hia 
own hair pulled, but he could afford to be lost so long as 
the causes he advocated succeeded." 

J. F : He assumes that the end justifies the means. 

L. G. : Yes, my lord, that is in accordance with the 
moral code of the agitation. 

Lawyer Goodenough then addressed the court. He 
pointed out that the prisoner had sought to achieve his 
ends by methods repugnant to the mind and moral standard 
of an ordinary man of the world, to say nothing of the 
code of a man of honour. He showed that the prisoner 
was a pure obstructionist. As a> Passive Resister he had 
sought to veto the will of the Imperial Parliament, as a 
leader in the Mayoralty agitation he set himself in opposi- 
tion to the will of the constituted authorities' of the city. 
He was, in fact, a compendium of prohibitions. Con- 
sidered algebraically he was a minus quantity, considered 
logically he was a negative proposition, considered gram- 
matically he was an adverb of negation, considered arith- 
metically he was an operation in division, considered musi- 
cally he was a crotchet. The only redeeming feature in 
the case was that he had done more harm to himself than 
to the person he attacked. Like the dog in Goldsmith's 
poem, that " went mad and bit the man " — 

" The man recovered of the bite, 
The doe: it was that died . " 


Lawyer Toogflod stated that whatever the prisoner had 
done had been done from the loftiest motives. He was a 
very good man, with an extra supply of conscience. Be- 
sides, he was backed by the best citizens of Manchester, 
ministers of religion, philanthropists, teetotalers, and 
what not. 

J. F. : Do you mean to tell me that ministers of religion 
gave their moral support to this man's questionable 
methods 1 

L. T. : Well, my lord, they did give a general support, 
but are not to be held responsible for every detail of 
his advocacy. 

L. G. : My lord, the gentlemen in question raised no 
objection to his methods until their unscrupulous character 
cast palpable discredit on their cause ; and even then, at 
the Free Trade Hall meeting, a canon of the English 
Church made a reference to the prisoner's name and elicited 
some applause from those present. 

J F. : You amaze me. There is an obvious call for a 
revision of the moral code of the agitation, a rectification 
of moral standards that have become partially falsified. 

The jury having unanimously pronounced the prisoner 
guilty of conduct unbecoming a citizen and a gentleman, 
the judge addressed the prisoner in the following words: 
" There was in your action over this matter an element 
of vindictiveness which doesi you discredit. Had you really 
believed the object of your attack guilty of bribery and 
other disqualifying acts you should not have waited for 
his designation to the Mayoralty before attacking him. 
The moment of attack was cruelly chosen, for a man cap- 
able of such acts is as unfit to be Councillor or Alderman 
as to be Mayor. The whole story of the ' thousand bright 
sovereigns ' is a mere cock-and-bull tale viewed in itself 
quite apart from the crushing exposure to which it has 
been subjected. Where the man's utterance could be con- 
strued into a vague implication of Mr. Holt, you assumed 
that he was a credible witness, where what he said cleared 
that gentleman you assumed that he was not to be believed. 
You assumed that a Church of England clergyman was 
bribable in the matter, and that a sum so ridiculously 


large would actually have been paid had the Rev. Mr. 

Wilson withdrawn his opposition to the licence. All this 
is childish folly which could only have imposed on those 
willing and anxioua to believe the worst of one whose trade 
they disliked. "When Mr. Holt proved that he was at 
Windermere on the day you said you saw him join the 
deputation of brewers in Manchester, you made a particu- 
larlv shabby statement, in which you half hinted the truth 
of your original statement. Tour words were 'My own 
clear conviction of seeing him pass from the well of the 
court to join the deputation in the Grand Jury box, con- 
firmed, at the time, by a magistrate present in court, led 
me to make the statement.' That is not the way in which 
a gentleman repairs a personal wrong. You have through- 
out damaged your cause by your methods of advocacy. A 
Christian man, of all men, should keep his public support 
of a cause free from everything that failsl in point of taste 
and character. After having acted so unlike a good citi- 
zen it required no small audacity for you to appeal on 
November 1st ' to all good citizens ' to vote as you wished. 
In view of all the serious offences against the law of honour 
of which you have been proved guilty, the sentence of the 
court upon you is that you be sent to Coventry — that you 
be excluded from public controversy for seven yearn— that 
a Scroll of Civio Dishonour for the City of Manchester be 
drawn up, and that your name shall be the first to be in- 
scribed thereon." His lordship concluded by recommending 
that a copy of this scroll should be made out on foolscap, 
should be enveloped in the copy of the Manchester 
Guardian containing the threat of " an embittered contro- 
versy" with which he commenced the late agitation, and 
in that form be presented to the prisoner by a big gun 
on his own side at a special meeting of the ' Citizens' Com- 
mittee ' to be summoned at the Central Hall for that 

Jobs Hkywoud Ltd., Excelsior Printing and Bookbinding Works, Manchester,